Re: Interrupt storm

Antoine Brodin wrote:
> John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
>>On Tuesday 05 April 2005 02:41 pm, Antoine Brodin wrote:
>>
>>>John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ok, I see the issue now.  The problem is that the BIOS sets the IRQ
>>>>registers in the PCI devices to values that don't match how the links are
>>>>programmed and we tend to trust the BIOS over the links in those cases. 
>>>>Can you tell me what IRQ sk0 gets if you don't use ACPI?  Does it get 5
>>>>or 9?  If it gets 9, does it work ok?
>>>>
>>>>You can try this patch for ACPI.  Unfortunately, some BIOSes lie when you
>>>>ask a link which IRQ it is routed to, so I'm not sure if this patch can
>>>>be committed as is.  Nate, do you know if such BIOSen only return no IRQ
>>>>at all (0 or 255) when they lie rather than a bogus "valid" IRQ?
>>>
>>>Without ACPI, sk0 gets irq 5 and it works ok.
>>>
>>>With your patch and ACPI, sk0 no longer timeouts, and it's usable.
>>>But I still have interrupt storms.
>>>dmesg: http://bsd.miki.eu.org/~antoine/current+acpi+patch.dmesg
>>
>>Well, all the interrupts are now routed the same as with the old ACPI code.  
>>Perhaps, can you try commenting out the code that calls _DIS in 
>>acpi_pci_link_attach()?  Specifically, here:
>>And let me know if that makes a difference.
> 
> 
> Thanks ! That makes everything work well !
> Also, backing out your previous change and only #if0ing the code that
> calls _DIS makes everything work well too.
> So I guess the _DIS methods of my BIOS are the culprit.

I assume when we run _DIS on a link, we set a flag for that link saying 
it is unrouted.  (We can't trust _CRS to report this correctly so we 
have to cache the value ourselves.)  So we should explicitly re-route 
all those links (with _SRS) sometime later.  Is that not happening?

-- 
Nate