Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 16:12:37 +0200 From: "Carlos Velasco" <freebsd@newipnet.com> To: "Bruce Evans" <bde@zeta.org.au>, "Burkard Meyendriesch" <bm@malepartus.de> Cc: atkin901@yahoo.com Subject: Re[2]: sio: lots of silo overflows on Asus K8V with Moxa SmartioC104H/PCI solved Message-ID: <200405041612370183.1C0502B8@192.168.128.16> In-Reply-To: <20040504221059.W9822@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20040426111754.38a855c4.bm@malepartus.de> <20040426233925.Y5300@gamplex.bde.org> <c6u3nd$f8q$1@sea.gmane.org> <20040501212314.N20783@gamplex.bde.org> <20040503145149.R3992@gamplex.bde.org> <20040503094236.6b7dc4a5.bm@malepartus.de> <20040504221059.W9822@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/05/2004 at 0:04 Bruce Evans wrote: >So much for my theory that the problem is contention with a low priority >thread. Since holding a spin lock or otherwise disabling interrupts for >too long would also break the PUC_FASTINTR case, the problem must be that >the highest priority runnable thread (which with my patch can only be the >sio (puc) ithread if that thread is runnable) is not always run. This is >quite likely to be just the old bug that handling of interrupts which >can't be handled immediately might be delayed for too long. From >ithread_schedule(): Bruce, Could this be relationated to my problem with "interrupt-level buffer overflows " posted on next thread? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-May/026697.html Regards, Carlos Velasco
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200405041612370183.1C0502B8>