From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 10 13:53:07 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1181216A4CE for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:53:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from f10.mail.ru (f10.mail.ru [194.67.57.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF6343D2D for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:53:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from _pppp@mail.ru) Received: from mail by f10.mail.ru with local id 1CzEkg-000NeJ-00; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:53:02 +0300 Received: from [81.200.13.122] by win.mail.ru with HTTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:53:02 +0300 From: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> To: Doug White Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19 X-Originating-IP: [81.200.13.122] Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:53:02 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20050209101735.Q13316@carver.gumbysoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re[4]: interrupt routing X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:53:07 -0000 >>> Ah, so they are all on the same bus. Yuck, performance is going to be >>> sucky. Bad Tyan, no cookie. That'll also explain the limited number of >>> interrupts available. I don't think there's anything we can do to help >>> the situation, sadly. >> I cannot affect the company equipment purchase policy either :/ >> 2 more servers on Tyan motherboards perform pretty bad also. > Well this IS PC hardware we're talkinga bout here. :) > > If you can show that some other OS is able to confgiure an alternate > interrupt then it might just be something up with ACPI. I actually want the NICs and SCSI controllers run in different kernel threads. I have found a year-old discussion on -current http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-January/019964.html about assigning physical IRQ lines to PCI devices; so I wanted to know if there is a way to force ACPI assign virtual interrupts a similar way. I hope I would have some vacant time this weekend to dig in the ACPI code a bit; I think it is not natural to assign a virtual IRQ for 2 devices if there are a plenty of free lines left... >> Well, I dont experience any problems with the base system (the server >> has 4G of physical RAM btw). The ports collection isnt amd64-ready >> though. I compiled some ports patching their makefiles but some of them >> dont compile at all. Say, I failed to build vnc server from ports (I >> needed it to install Oracle) the only one I managed to build was an >> ancient realvnc (3.3.7), but I couldnt connect to it. I tried to compile >> realvnc 4.x from sources but ran into namespace issues (they were >> discussed on another thread here regarding some software package; seems >> to be a buggy gcc). So, Ive given up and happily installed an i386 >> version. > Well, thats not a failing of the ports system itself :-) Did you report > your problems to the port maintainers? Some of them before I have given up...