on 18/12/2011 19:39 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> On Sunday 18 December 2011 11:58:57 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 17/12/2011 19:06 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
>>> If the problem is only in UKBD driver, I don't think this is a big
>>> problem to solve. The reason for the auto-m
On Sunday 18 December 2011 11:58:57 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 17/12/2011 19:06 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> > If the problem is only in UKBD driver, I don't think this is a big
> > problem to solve. The reason for the auto-magic locking, is that I've
> > sometimes seen callers in non-po
on 17/12/2011 19:06 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> If the problem is only in UKBD driver, I don't think this is a big problem to
> solve. The reason for the auto-magic locking, is that I've sometimes seen
> callers in non-polling mode call into UKBD without Giant locked. And this
> ca
On Saturday 17 December 2011 15:57:30 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Replying further...
>
> > Not directly, but indirect. You know, if you pause thread 1 (which I
> > thought was thread 0), then other thread will get a chance to run.
>
> pause() could be a sufficient action to let other thread run, but i
On Saturday 17 December 2011 15:57:24 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 16/12/2011 01:16 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> > I think I was not aware about the Giant locking maybe having something to
> > do about this. I was just thinking about this recently, that syscons and
> > all keyboard stuff,
Replying further...
on 16/12/2011 00:56 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> On Thursday 15 December 2011 15:17:01 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> Hmm... I looked at the history of ukbd.c (which I should have done from the
>> very start) and I see two relevant revisions:
>> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/
on 16/12/2011 01:16 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> I think I was not aware about the Giant locking maybe having something to do
> about this. I was just thinking about this recently, that syscons and all
> keyboard stuff, currently is Giant locked. Scary?
Nope :-)
I think that no sysc
On Friday 16 December 2011 00:05:54 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 16/12/2011 00:56 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> > On Thursday 15 December 2011 15:17:01 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >> Hmm... I looked at the history of ukbd.c (which I should have done from
> >> the very start) and I see two relevan
on 16/12/2011 00:56 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> On Thursday 15 December 2011 15:17:01 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> Hmm... I looked at the history of ukbd.c (which I should have done from the
>> very start) and I see two relevant revisions:
>> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/dev/usb/
On Thursday 15 December 2011 15:17:01 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 14/12/2011 23:56 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> > On Wednesday 14 December 2011 16:37:50 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >> So, Hans Petter, do you recall any details of this problem?
> >> I am curious about which thread got starved by
on 14/12/2011 23:56 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> On Wednesday 14 December 2011 16:37:50 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> So, Hans Petter, do you recall any details of this problem?
>> I am curious about which thread got starved by which.
>
> From what I know this was 100% reproducible.
>
> Rem
On Wednesday 14 December 2011 16:37:50 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 13/12/2011 10:17 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> > on 13/12/2011 00:21 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> [snip]
>
> > And in the view of the below data I would like us to revisit this
> > problem. I looked over usb code and it see
on 13/12/2011 10:17 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> on 13/12/2011 00:21 Andriy Gapon said the following:
[snip]
> And in the view of the below data I would like us to revisit this problem.
> I looked over usb code and it seems that all usb threads are created with
> priorities of either USB_PRI_
on 13/12/2011 00:21 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> on 12/12/2011 21:09 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
>> On Monday 12 December 2011 20:05:38 John Baldwin wrote:
Hi,
> hselasky@ or someone else familiar with the various usb threads would
> have to answer that
on 12/12/2011 21:09 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> On Monday 12 December 2011 20:05:38 John Baldwin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
hselasky@ or someone else familiar with the various usb threads would
have to answer that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is only during init() where the
On Monday, December 12, 2011 2:13:49 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, December 12, 2011 10:58:22 am Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >> On Monday 12 December 2011 16:55:38 m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:03 AM,
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2011 10:58:22 am Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> On Monday 12 December 2011 16:55:38 m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> > > on 11/12/2011 23:48 m...@freebsd.org said th
On Monday 12 December 2011 20:05:38 John Baldwin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > > hselasky@ or someone else familiar with the various usb threads would
> > > have to answer that.
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem is only during init() where the init thread has highest
> > priority and that doesn't all
On Monday, December 12, 2011 10:58:22 am Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Monday 12 December 2011 16:55:38 m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > > on 11/12/2011 23:48 m...@freebsd.org said the following:
> > >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Andriy
On Monday 12 December 2011 16:55:38 m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > on 11/12/2011 23:48 m...@freebsd.org said the following:
> >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>> Does the following change do what I think that it does?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 11/12/2011 23:48 m...@freebsd.org said the following:
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>
>>> Does the following change do what I think that it does?
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Author: Andriy Gapon
>>> Date: Thu Sep
on 11/12/2011 23:48 m...@freebsd.org said the following:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>> Does the following change do what I think that it does?
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Author: Andriy Gapon
>> Date: Thu Sep 1 16:50:13 2011 +0300
>>
>>ukbd: drop local duplicate of ke
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> Does the following change do what I think that it does?
> Thank you!
>
> Author: Andriy Gapon
> Date: Thu Sep 1 16:50:13 2011 +0300
>
> ukbd: drop local duplicate of kern_yield and use that instead
>
> diff --git a/sys/dev/usb/input/uk
Does the following change do what I think that it does?
Thank you!
Author: Andriy Gapon
Date: Thu Sep 1 16:50:13 2011 +0300
ukbd: drop local duplicate of kern_yield and use that instead
diff --git a/sys/dev/usb/input/ukbd.c b/sys/dev/usb/input/ukbd.c
index 086c178..8078cbb 100644
--- a/s
24 matches
Mail list logo
