[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] cpuidle and un-eoid interrupts at the local apic
Hello Andrew,I've disabled MSI on that controller, now it is running with level triggered IRQs. No crash so far with these settings. But what I see are a lot of spurious interrupts for every type of IRQ on my machine, Here an example: [root@localhost /]# cat /proc/irq/1276/spurious count 61007 unhandled 0 last_unhandled 36736990 ms I can see this for the ethernet irqs, usb, sata and so on. I've already written it into another mail on Sunday: >http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/kernel/irq/manage.c?v=2.6.32: >1025 if ((irqflags & (IRQF_SHARED|IRQF_DISABLED)) == >1026 (IRQF_SHARED|IRQF_DISABLED)) { >1027 pr_warning( >1028 "IRQ %d/%s: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on >shared IRQs\n", >1029 irq, devname); >... >738 * Force MSI interrupts to run with interrupts >739 * disabled. The multi vector cards can cause stack >740 * overflows due to nested interrupts when enough of >741 * them are directed to a core and fire at the same >742 * time. >743 */ >744 if (desc->msi_desc) >745 new->flags |= IRQF_DISABLED;--> When using MSI on the SATA controller the kernel indicates me that IRQF_SHARED for that interrupt is set, so the MSI is shared ?! I thought that it is not possible that MSI interrupts are shared. --> Is that what we see in the kernel oops the stack overflow the comment in lines 738-742 is talking about ?! Espacially because the warning in 1028 tells me that IRQF_DISABLED might not be set on shared interrupts. Am 09.09.2013 15:16, schrieb Andrew Cooper: So in this case, irq29 is now your SATA controller. I presume you are still falling over the same basic assertion for the pending EOI stack? ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |