John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday 18 November 2005 07:18 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote: > >>:So the amd64 snapshot didn't boot but the i386 one did? Interesting. >>:Thanks a lot for investigating this. >>: >>:Scott >> >> Yup. My guess is that the 64-bit boot issue that early in the boot >> sequence is something stupid simple. It looks it from the consistency >> of the crash. > > > Actually, your comments about the stray ICU interrupts led me to it on the way > home tonight. Peter has a hack in amd64 that if you don't include 'device > atpic' in your kernel config (not in GENERIC amd64 by default in HEAD) he > just masks the PICs. However, he doesn't setup handlers for the spurious > interrupts that can still occur (since they are unmaskable). Couple that > with the fact that HEAD (until a few hours ago) didn't print the trap message > for a T_RESERVED trap, and you'll see that your panic on amd64 was caused by > a spurious ICU interrupt. I have part of peter's hack expanded to do a full > reset of the ICUs, and I'll update it for Monday to adjust the base interrupt > such that the spurious ICU vectors get sent to the APIC spurious interrupt > vector. That should fix your issue as well as the same issue reported by > someone else on the amd64_at_ list recently. > Does this imply that the 'correct' fix involves catching the stray ICU interrupt via a trap handler? How often do these interrupts happen, and therefore what is the performance consequence to having to handle them? ScottReceived on Sun Nov 20 2005 - 03:18:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:48 UTC