[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
PCI Deadlock Handling
- To: Mailing List Recipients <pci-sig-request@znyx.com>
- Subject: PCI Deadlock Handling
- From: "paul (p.n.) ramsden" <ramsden@nortel.ca>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 13:49:00 -0400
- Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 13:49:00 -0400
- Resent-From: pci-sig-request@znyx.com
- Resent-Message-Id: <"tcLO82.0.8o6.DJ2Io"@dart>
- Resent-Sender: pci-sig-request@znyx.com
- Sender: "paul (p.n.) ramsden" <ramsden@nortel.ca>
- X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/;bcars735.b.935:24.08.96.17.58.16]
- X400-Originator: /dd.id=0118938/g=paul/i=pn/s=ramsden/@bnr.ca
- X400-Received: by mta bnr.ca in /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:01:47 -0400
- X400-Received: by /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 13:58:16 -0400
- X400-Received: by /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 13:49:00 -0400
In the PCI Specification 2.1, section 3.3.3.2.2 "Requirements on a
Master Because of Target Termination" it stipulates that a PCI Master
device that implements target functionality must be able to accept
target accesses in between RETRIES as a master.
However, I have heard rumours that many commercial PCI mother boards
cannot comply with this part of the specification in the situation that
their PCI interface FIFOs become full in the case of PCI writes, or in
the case of PCI reads, because the host cannot "back off" it's master
cycle on the local bus. If this is true then it would mean that a
deadlock could occur, and the system would hang due to contention in
accesses to the LOCAL buses (as distinct from the PCI bus) if two
master/target PCI devices initiate a master cycle to each others target
space at the same time.
Can anyone on this reflector throw any light on whether this rumour is
true of not?
Paul Ramsden
Dept 0X10
Nortel Technology
email ramsden@nortel.com
+ L <