Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:34:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Schmidt?= <sos@DeepCore.dk> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.3-RELEASE: WARNING - WRITE_DMA interrupt timout - what does it mean? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1041110102656.60848Y-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <4191E21C.5040307@DeepCore.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, S=F8ren Schmidt wrote: > > I'm still a bit skeptical that the task queue is at fault -- I run my > > notebook with continuous measurement of the latency to schedule tasks, > > generating a warning for any latency > .5 seconds, and the only time I > > ever see that sort of latency is during the boot process when ACPI has > > scheduled a task to run, but the task queue thread has not yet been > > allowed to run: >=20 > Right, the timeout is 5 secs. I havn't looked into how the taskqueues > are handled recently, but in case of ATA read/writes it is the > bio_taskqueue handled by geom thats in use not the catchall ones, does > your timing cover that as well?=20 Nope -- I had assumed that the suggested task problems in question was the use of taskqueue_enqueue() in ata-queue for the timeout, rather than the bio_taskqueue() ata_completed() call. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Principal Research Scientist, McAfee Research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1041110102656.60848Y-100000>