On 06-Nov-2003 Eric Anholt wrote: > On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 21:24, Mike Hoskins wrote: >> first, i apologize... i didn't think i'd get real answers on -questions >> so i'm posting this here. i realize 5.x isn't really "stable" yet, but i >> hope it's close enough to be relevant. ;) >> >> i've got XFree86 4.3.0 installed, from the "X-4" meta port. that went >> smoothly. using the mga driver with a matrox g450 (dual head). no dri on >> head 2 as expected, but again no obvious problems. >> >> what i've noticed (this is 5.1-p8) is that after X has been running for >> awhile, trying to exit X causes a hang. at first i thought it was some >> program under X not exiting properly (that's what it looks like), but i've >> reproduced the same behavior with nothing but X running. if i start X and >> then exit immediately, everything is fine. this seems to only happen >> after X runs for a week or more. >> >> the one thing i noticed, was some "interesting" behavior wrt drm and it's >> claimed IRQ. before starting X (after a reboot), `ps ax|grep irq` shows: >> >> 19 ?? WL 0:00.00 (irq9: pcm0 acpi0) >> 20 ?? WL 0:00.10 (irq14: ata0) >> 21 ?? WL 0:00.00 (irq15: ata1) >> 22 ?? WL 0:00.00 (irq10: fxp0) >> 23 ?? WL 0:00.00 (irq6: fdc0) >> 24 ?? WL 0:00.01 (irq1: atkbd0) >> >> the same from within X shows, >> >> 19 ?? WL 0:00.00 (irq9: pcm0 acpi0) >> 20 ?? WL 0:01.05 (irq14: ata0) >> 21 ?? WL 0:00.00 (irq15: ata1) >> 22 ?? WL 0:00.02 (irq10: fxp0) >> 23 ?? WL 0:00.00 (irq6: fdc0) >> 24 ?? WL 0:00.08 (irq1: atkbd0) >> 25 ?? WL 0:00.09 (irq12: psm0) >> 690 ?? WL 0:00.12 (irq11: drm0) >> >> and once exiting X (immediately, when it exits without hanging), >> >> 19 ?? WL 0:00.00 (irq9: pcm0 acpi0) >> 20 ?? WL 0:01.04 (irq14: ata0) >> 21 ?? WL 0:00.00 (irq15: ata1) >> 22 ?? WL 0:00.02 (irq10: fxp0) >> 23 ?? WL 0:00.00 (irq6: fdc0) >> 24 ?? WL 0:00.07 (irq1: atkbd0) >> 25 ?? WL 0:00.06 (irq12: psm0) >> 690 ?? WL 0:00.08 (irq11:) >> >> is irq11 not being freed? or is that normal behavior? i've double >> checked by X config, but i may have something wrong. i've read various >> web pages and XFree's suggestions about configuring the g450... but, >> again, i may have overlooked something.
This is correct. Current currently doesn't try to destroy ithreads when they lose all their handlers. -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
