On Thursday 13 November 2008 01:39:21 Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> OK. Masking out 0x4 didn't improve the softirq on bulk data, but
> masking out 0x40 as well made the wireless interface unusable. Couldn't
> even ping through it.
Ok, well. But did it reduce the massive CPU usage?
> messages? Curr
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 00:52 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> .1 seconds isn't actually _that_ often.
Indeed.
> Anyway, can you try masking IRQ 0x4 and if that doesn't improve
> it also 0x40?
> Just go to b43.h search #define B43_IRQ_MASKTEMPLATE and remove
> the B43_IRQ_TBTT_INDI and/or B43_IRQ_
On Thursday 13 November 2008 00:41:47 Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 00:17 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >
> > Well, could be, if they trigger often (hundreds of times per second),
> > maybe because the IRQ needs to be ACKed in some way, for example.
>
> Yeah.
>
> > From your l
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 00:17 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> Well, could be, if they trigger often (hundreds of times per second),
> maybe because the IRQ needs to be ACKed in some way, for example.
Yeah.
> From your logs it's rather hard to tell, because the logs don't have
> timestamps.
Yeah,
On Wednesday 12 November 2008 15:29:52 Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:22 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 November 2008 14:22:46 Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > > I can see in the bottom-half where all of those are handled except
> > > B43_IRQ_DMA. I don't see anywh
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:22 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2008 14:22:46 Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > I can see in the bottom-half where all of those are handled except
> > B43_IRQ_DMA. I don't see anywhere in the whole driver where that is
> > handled in fact.
>
> It's ha
On Wednesday 12 November 2008 14:22:46 Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> I can see in the bottom-half where all of those are handled except
> B43_IRQ_DMA. I don't see anywhere in the whole driver where that is
> handled in fact.
It's handled implicitely by the DMA handling. You can ignore that IRQ.
What
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 13:57 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> Yeah, wrong.
> Do it later _after_ checking for shared IRQ and after the masking.
>
> 1892 static irqreturn_t b43_interrupt_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
> 1893 {
> 1894 irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_NONE;
> 1895 struct b43_wld
On Wednesday 12 November 2008 13:09:52 Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 12:39 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 November 2008 04:27:14 Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > > Please excuse the cross-posting but this thread started on openwrt-users
> > > but the findings are prob
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 12:39 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2008 04:27:14 Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > Please excuse the cross-posting but this thread started on openwrt-users
> > but the findings are probably more relevant to the developers.
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17
On Wednesday 12 November 2008 04:27:14 Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Please excuse the cross-posting but this thread started on openwrt-users
> but the findings are probably more relevant to the developers.
>
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17:46 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >
> > Lookup b43_interrupt_hand
Hi Brian ;-)
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Please excuse the cross-posting but this thread started on openwrt-users
> but the findings are probably more relevant to the developers.
>
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17:46 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
>> Lookup b43_interrupt_handler() and look for the "reason
Please excuse the cross-posting but this thread started on openwrt-users
but the findings are probably more relevant to the developers.
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17:46 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> Lookup b43_interrupt_handler() and look for the "reason" variable.
> Fairly straightforward, IMO.
O
13 matches
Mail list logo
