From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr 14 00:31:30 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C8837B401
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 00:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3ABCF43FA3
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 00:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from silby@silby.com)
Received: (qmail 35978 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2003 07:31:28 -0000
Received: from niwun.pair.com (HELO localhost) (209.68.2.70)
  by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2003 07:31:28 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.70
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:27:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
To: harti@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <20030411094125.P774@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <20030413212354.U93049@odysseus.silby.com>
References: <20030409114957.GN83126@cicely9.cicely.de>   
	<20030410181322.W774@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
	<20030411094125.P774@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
Subject: Re: realtime problem
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 07:31:30 -0000


On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Harti Brandt wrote:

> So, of course, it never takes the early return. When I remove the first
> assignment it seems to work. In this case I get a mean time for
> xl_status_update of 205usec which is ok I suppose.

That sounds like what I was seeing back when I was playing with the code.
Not perfect, but a heck of a lot better than how it was before.

If the logic in the patch is munged, it's probably because I took a
snapshot of my work in an non-optimal state... nonetheless, the idea is
clear, and should apply to all PHYs equally well.  I encourage you to
investigate further. :)

I would take another look at the code, but I'm bound and determined to
finish my mbuf testing / finding that if_xl-related panic before I get
sidetracked again.  (And I already have a great diversion planned for
myself once this gets done.)

Good luck,

Mike "Silby" Silbersack