Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:25:11 -0600 From: Craig Boston <craig@tobuj.gank.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Subject: Re: Weird PCI interrupt delivery problem (resolution, sort of) Message-ID: <20060124022511.GA99552@nowhere> In-Reply-To: <200601201542.23464.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20060120014307.GA3118@nowhere> <43D07273.6030804@samsco.org> <20060120152731.GA5660@nowhere> <200601201542.23464.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 03:42:21PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:17:39PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> > This points to a bus coherency problem. I wonder if your BIOS is
> > incorrectly setting the memory region of the apics as cachable. You'll
> > want to bug Baldwin about this.
>
> Hmm, well, you can actually try the PAT patch if you are feeling brave as it
> maps all devices (including APICs) as uncacheable.
Tried the updated PAT patch (with s/pmap_unmapbios/pmap_unmap_bios/ to
get ACPI to compile). Unfortunately if it is a caching problem, PAT
isn't able to fix it. Same result as stock kernel -- interrupts stop
arriving after a dozen or so. AFAICT the local APIC is the only
memory-mapped I/O region that seems to be problematic.
Instead of writing the value twice, I also tried inserting an
__asm("nop") before the write with no effect. Also, a single write to
an unrelated area doesn't help:
+static volatile int dummyeoi;
+
lapic_eoi(void)
{
+ dummyeoi = 1;
lapic->eoi = 0;
+ dummyeoi = 2;
}
I'm _reasonably_ certain that marking dummyeoi volatile and leaving it
uninitialized will prevent gcc from optimizng that out. Forcing R/W
cycles (++dummyeoi) before and after doesn't work either.
A DELAY(1) before the lapic->eoi write does the trick, but DELAY does
lots of complicated things so I don't know how useful of a data point
that is.
I'm probably missing something, but if bad cache behavior was causing
writes to the lapic EOI register to not always take effect, wouldn't the
_next_ irq (even if it's a different line) cause the one that's
currently pending to be acknowledged?
Craig
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060124022511.GA99552>