From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jan 11 19:15:29 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5031116A4CE
	for <mobile@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:15:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44BE443D1F
	for <mobile@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:15:28 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0C3FE7E032034;
	Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:15:18 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200401120315.i0C3FE7E032034@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:15:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: imp@bsdimp.com
In-Reply-To: <20040111.172627.84647422.imp@bsdimp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: mobile@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: More power patches
X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD <freebsd-mobile.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-mobile>,
	<mailto:freebsd-mobile-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-mobile>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-mobile-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-mobile>,
	<mailto:freebsd-mobile-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:15:29 -0000

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?