On 05/05/2004 at 0:04 Bruce Evans wrote: >So much for my theory that the problem is contention with a low priority >thread. Since holding a spin lock or otherwise disabling interrupts for >too long would also break the PUC_FASTINTR case, the problem must be that >the highest priority runnable thread (which with my patch can only be the >sio (puc) ithread if that thread is runnable) is not always run. This is >quite likely to be just the old bug that handling of interrupts which >can't be handled immediately might be delayed for too long. From >ithread_schedule(): Bruce, Could this be relationated to my problem with "interrupt-level buffer overflows " posted on next thread? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-May/026697.html Regards, Carlos VelascoReceived on Tue May 04 2004 - 05:36:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:53 UTC