Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:27:38 -0500 (CDT)
From:      Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
To:        harti@freebsd.org
Cc:        John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
Subject:   Re: realtime problem
Message-ID:  <20030413212354.U93049@odysseus.silby.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030411094125.P774@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
References:  <20030409114957.GN83126@cicely9.cicely.de>    <20030410181322.W774@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030411094125.P774@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Harti Brandt wrote:

> So, of course, it never takes the early return. When I remove the first
> assignment it seems to work. In this case I get a mean time for
> xl_status_update of 205usec which is ok I suppose.

That sounds like what I was seeing back when I was playing with the code.
Not perfect, but a heck of a lot better than how it was before.

If the logic in the patch is munged, it's probably because I took a
snapshot of my work in an non-optimal state... nonetheless, the idea is
clear, and should apply to all PHYs equally well.  I encourage you to
investigate further. :)

I would take another look at the code, but I'm bound and determined to
finish my mbuf testing / finding that if_xl-related panic before I get
sidetracked again.  (And I already have a great diversion planned for
myself once this gets done.)

Good luck,

Mike "Silby" Silbersack



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030413212354.U93049>