Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:15:14 -0800 (PST) From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> To: imp@bsdimp.com Cc: mobile@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: More power patches Message-ID: <200401120315.i0C3FE7E032034@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <20040111.172627.84647422.imp@bsdimp.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 11 Jan, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <200401120002.i0C02F7E031685@gw.catspoiler.org>
> Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> : There is still the issue of the irq breakage caused by the attach
> : failure.
>
> I don't understand that one at all.. Unless it is a failure message
> is a cut-n-pasto or something weird is happening.
There is something wierd happening. The problem appears to be in
ithread_remove_handler() or ithread_loop(). ithread_remove_handler() is
executing the
if (!TD_AWAITING_INTR(ithread->it_td)) {
condition and setting the IH_DEAD flag. If this flag is set,
ithread_remove_handler() should msleep() to wait for the thread to do
the removal. The problem is that ithread_remove_handler() doesn't
appear to sleep for any significant amount of time, and ithread_loop()
never seems to execute the the block of code that detects IH_DEAD and
executes TAILQ_REMOVE(). When ithread_remove_handler() calls
ithread_update() after the msleep() call, ithread_update() is still
finding the handler on the list, and then ithread_remove_handler()
proceeds to free the handler back to the heap where it is undoubtably
getting stomped on and causing havoc later on.
Is there a problem with calling msleep() this early in the boot
sequence?
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401120315.i0C3FE7E032034>