On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:06:37PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:00:03AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > Anyhow, Darrick there is a general bug in this area, can you try this and
> > see if it helps?
>
> Er... that instantly locked up the system.
hmm.. Please try this instead. This is intended only for debug. Based on your
test results, we can comeup with a more decent fix.
diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86_64/kernel/irq.c
index 3eaceac..3997679 100644
--- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/irq.c
+++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/irq.c
@@ -144,17 +144,37 @@ void fixup_irqs(cpumask_t map)
for (irq = 0; irq < NR_IRQS; irq++) {
cpumask_t mask;
+ int break_affinity = 0;
+ int set_affinity = 1;
+
if (irq == 2)
continue;
+ /* irq's are disabled at this point */
+ spin_lock(&irq_desc[irq].lock);
+
cpus_and(mask, irq_desc[irq].affinity, map);
if (any_online_cpu(mask) == NR_CPUS) {
- printk("Breaking affinity for irq %i\n", irq);
+ break_affinity = 1;
mask = map;
}
+
+ if (irq_desc[irq].chip->mask)
+ irq_desc[irq].chip->mask(irq);
+
if (irq_desc[irq].chip->set_affinity)
irq_desc[irq].chip->set_affinity(irq, mask);
else if (irq_desc[irq].action && !(warned++))
+ set_affinity = 0;
+
+ if (irq_desc[irq].chip->unmask)
+ irq_desc[irq].chip->unmask(irq);
+
+ spin_unlock(&irq_desc[irq].lock);
+
+ if (break_affinity && set_affinity)
+ printk("Broke affinity for irq %i\n", irq);
+ else if (!set_affinity)
printk("Cannot set affinity for irq %i\n", irq);
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
