From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Thu Jul 30 09:42:30 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6309AEC14 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:42:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (mail.turbocat.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:d16:4514::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CD65836 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:42:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from laptop015.home.selasky.org (cm-176.74.213.204.customer.telag.net [176.74.213.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76AEF1FE022; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:42:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55B9F1D9.5070503@selasky.org> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:43:53 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Svatopluk Kraus , John-Mark Gurney CC: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: [RPI-B] [HEADS UP] DWC OTG TX path optimisation for 11-current References: <55A7D8CE.4020809@selasky.org> <55B23276.8090703@selasky.org> <55B73113.2020308@selasky.org> <55B8AB76.7030603@selasky.org> <55B8B297.1010008@selasky.org> <20150729154516.GH78154@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:42:30 -0000 On 07/30/15 11:32, Svatopluk Kraus wrote: > I do not think that it's problem of smsc driver. The messages are just > indicator that something else (it's most propably usb disk related) is > generating big load so other clients on usb are restrained. However, > when it happens, this big load does not stop even if system is "idle", > so it looks that it's generated "internally" somewhere. For example, > it could be a try to recover from some "problems" which never > recovers. Hi, If other USB requests continue working while this is happening, it is a bug in the SMSC driver. I see at least the miibus read/write access is not sequential. If multiple threads try to access the miibus via ifconfig IOCTLs for example, there can be a race which the driver doesn't handle. BTW: "usbdump" will tell the actual USB error code, if any. If the USB hardware is responding correctly, it is for sure a driver bug. Else I'll investigate. --HPS