From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 28 13:54:23 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 283CD16A4D2; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:54:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.sandvine.com (sandvine.com [199.243.201.138])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 33D2F43D1F; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:54:22 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from gnagelhout@sandvine.com)
Received: by mail.sandvine.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
	id <MTR29JVD>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:53:58 -0400
Message-ID: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337054EC4E1@mail.sandvine.com>
From: Gerrit Nagelhout <gnagelhout@sandvine.com>
To: 'John Baldwin' <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:53:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
cc: kris@FreeBSD.org
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Subject: RE: STI, HLT in acpi_cpu_idle_c1
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:54:23 -0000

John Baldwin wrote:
> Hmm, it appears it is consistently CPU1 that thinks that 
> IPI_HARDCLOCK is not 
> being EOI'd.  Can you try swapping the CPUs and see if the 
> lockup moves from 
> CPU1 to CPU3?
> 
> -- 

I added the following *HACK* to the idle code, and let it run
over the weekend (with halt on idle disabled).  It hit the function
isr_problem 9 times, but did not lockup anymore.  The problem
is that I don't know if the EOI just got lost, or whether the
interrupt was not handled at all.  I couldn't find any ill effects
from this code ... yet.

extern volatile lapic_t *lapic;
void isr_problem(void);
int isrProblem=0;
void isr_problem()
{
    isrProblem++;
    lapic->eoi = 0;
}

int
mp_grab_cpu_hlt(void)
{
	u_int mask = PCPU_GET(cpumask);
	int retval;

        if(lapic->isr7 != 0) {
            isr_problem();
        }

	retval = mask & hlt_cpus_mask;
	while (mask & hlt_cpus_mask)
		__asm __volatile("sti; hlt" : : : "memory");
	return (retval);
}