From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:48:26 +1000 Message-Id: <199908310148.LAA14647@tango.anu.edu.au> From: Paul Mackerras To: Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be CC: toe@unlserve.unl.edu, puetzk@iastate.edu, iweiny@falcon.csc.calpoly.edu, lambert@jeol.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org In-reply-to: (message from Geert Uytterhoeven on Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:23:48 +0200 (CEST)) Subject: Re: Communicator Crashes X II Reply-to: Paul.Mackerras@cs.anu.edu.au References: Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Perhaps the kernel spends too much time in the interrupt handling section of > the IDE driver? We saw similar things on m68k. Or the SCSI code. I recently converted the mesh and mac53c94 drivers to use the `new-style' error handling (it didn't take as much hacking as I had expected). One result is that the command-done processing in the scsi mid-layer gets done in a BH handler rather than in an interrupt handler with interrupts disabled. I noticed that I got far fewer serial overruns with the new code during disk activity. I don't see the FB. overflow messages, but then I don't run the serial port at 115200, only at 57600. Is it a common feature that people who see the FB. overflow message are running the serial port at 115200 or 230400 baud? Paul. [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. Please check http://lists.linuxppc.org/ ]] [[ and http://www.linuxppc.org/ for useful information before posting. ]]