From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 16 06:10:04 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03FD106564A for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:10:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB37D8FC13 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:10:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mBG6A4H3085426 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:10:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id mBG6A4we085419; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:10:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:10:04 GMT Message-Id: <200812160610.mBG6A4we085419@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Warner Losh Cc: Subject: Re: kern/118093: firewire bus reset hogs CPU, causing data to be lost X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Warner Losh List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:10:04 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/118093; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Warner Losh To: freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com Cc: freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-drivers@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/118093: firewire bus reset hogs CPU, causing data to be lost Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:01:30 -0700 (MST) > I found the source of this problem. When a firewire bus resets, > the firewire driver prints a few lines to the console, > using printf(9) and device_printf(9). I suspect that these are > running at splfw aka splimp, locking out other i/o. This can't be the case. There's no SPL involved at all. Maybe removing the printfs causes an interrupt to be serviced faster, resulting in what appears to be better performance... > Commenting out the *printf() calls fixes the problem, but that > isn't a good solution. > > Would changing the *printf() calls to log(9) calls be safe? > ("safe" meaning other i/o doesn't get locked out) > > Ah, for the good old days when 19200 baud seemed fast... > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-drivers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-drivers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-drivers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >