7-CURRENT-SNAP009-i386-bootonly.iso on Shuttle XPC w/ AMD X2
(was Re: Side note on Shuttle XPC)
scottl at samsco.org
Sun Nov 20 04:18:03 GMT 2005
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.
>> 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@ 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
More information about the freebsd-amd64