From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 29 17:09:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 1B3EF16A41F; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:09:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE2B43D48; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:08:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [10.10.3.185] ([69.15.205.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2TH8oaJ000977; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:08:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <442ABF1B.5040305@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:08:43 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060206 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <20060329020527.f8f087a4.conrads@cox.net> <200603290841.50759.jhb@freebsd.org> <442AB520.5050505@samsco.org> <200603291157.54467.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200603291157.54467.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: Bruce M Simpson , "Conrad J. Sabatier" , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device atpic to be deprecated? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:09:04 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 29 March 2006 11:26, Scott Long wrote: > >>John Baldwin wrote: >> >>>On Wednesday 29 March 2006 03:51 am, Bruce M Simpson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:05:27AM -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Is the plan still in effect to abolish this device? >>>> >>>>To my mind it wouldn't make much sense, given the sheer amount of hardware >>>>out there which doesn't have an IOAPIC, then again I'm probably out of >>>>touch with the state of interrupt handling in -CURRENT. >>> >>> >>>All amd64 machines (which is where atpic would be removed) have an APIC. >>> >> >>That's kind of like saying that ISA will be removed because there is PCI >>=-) Having an APIC doesn't necessarily guarantee that it works. There >>have been enough reports of problems on the mailing lists over time that >>I think it's a bit premature to declare the ATPIC dead. Also, is the >>ATPIC code in amd64 causing problems, holding back progress, or creating >>a maintenance burden? > > > I think that once the lapic timer stuff was added almost all of the APIC > issues I was aware of went away on amd64 that were fixed by using device > atpic instead. Most of the earlier problems were due to chipsets not > setting up pin 0 as extint, etc. but all that is no longer relevant when > we switched to using the lapic timer and stopped using irq0 and irq8 with > APIC. This is the first I've heard since the lapic timer stuff that APIC > didn't work on an amd64 box, and device atpic has been off by default in > HEAD for quite a while now. If we were able to require APIC on amd64, then > we might be able to try out some optimizations and other things I haven't > bothered with since they wouldn't be feasible on i386. > Fine, remove it. Scott