From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov 10 09:25:31 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 E594416A4CE; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:25:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from acampi.inet.it (acampi.inet.it [213.92.1.165])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A7A2A43D45; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:25:31 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from andrea@acampi.inet.it)
Received: by acampi.inet.it (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id C85C31A; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:25:29 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:25:29 +0100
From: Andrea Campi <andrea+freebsd_current@webcom.it>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20041110092529.GB5658@webcom.it>
References: <4191CD35.9040000@DeepCore.dk>
	<Pine.NEB.3.96L.1041110091049.60848T-100000@fledge.watson.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1041110091049.60848T-100000@fledge.watson.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
cc: Zoltan Frombach <tssajo@hotmail.com>
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: S?ren Schmidt <sos@DeepCore.dk>
Subject: Re: Re: 5.3-RELEASE: WARNING - WRITE_DMA interrupt timout - what
	does it	mean?
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: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:25:32 -0000

Nitpicking mode on...

On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 09:17:39AM +0000, Robert Watson wrote:
> I'm still a bit skeptical that the task queue is at fault -- I run my
> notebook with continuous measurement of the latency to schedule tasks,
> generating a warning for any latency > .5 seconds, and the only time I
[...]

> @@ -187,8 +198,16 @@
>  		pending = task->ta_pending;
>  		task->ta_pending = 0;
>  		task->ta_flags |= TAF_PENDING;
> +		tq_out++;
>  		mtx_unlock(&queue->tq_mutex);
>  
> +		getnanotime(&tv);
> +		timespecsub(&tv, &task->ta_queuetime);
> +		if (tv.tv_nsec >= 0500000000) {

Unless this is a typo while generating the patch for the list, and you
are actually running with correct code, you're measuring latencies
greater than 500M OCTAL, that is about 0.084 sec... Although that
makes you argument even stronger I guess.

Bye,
	Andrea

-- 
      ...and that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.