On Sunday, 24 June 2007 02:45, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:54:52 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:3
On Sunday, 24 June 2007 02:28, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 01:54:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This patch breaks hibernation on my Turion 64 X2 - based testbox (HPC
> > nx6325).
> >
> > _cpu_down() just hangs as though there were a deadlock in there, 100% of the
>
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 06:45:05PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Hmm. It looks like Siddha sent the wrong version of the patch.
> The working tested version had an additional test to ensure
> the mask and unmask methods were implemented.
>
> i.e.
> + if (irq_desc[irq].chip->mas
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:54:52 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> > >
>> > > This fixes the proble
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 01:54:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This patch breaks hibernation on my Turion 64 X2 - based testbox (HPC nx6325).
>
> _cpu_down() just hangs as though there were a deadlock in there, 100% of the
> time.
Does the patch at this URL work for you?
http://marc.info/?
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:54:52 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > >
> > > This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
> >
> > Great! Andrew, please include
On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >
> > This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
>
> Great! Andrew, please include the appended patch in -mm.
>
>
> Subject: [patch] x86_64, irq: use mask/unmask and proper
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>
> This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
Great! Andrew, please include the appended patch in -mm.
Subject: [patch] x86_64, irq: use mask/unmask and proper locking in fixup_irqs
From: Suresh Siddha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Force irq m
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:59:27PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> hmm.. Please try this instead. This is intended only for debug. Based on your
> test results, we can comeup with a more decent fix.
This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
--D
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
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 t
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.
--D
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
"Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:54:45AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> "Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
>
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:54:45AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > [ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
> >> >
> >>
> >> And just to make sure, at this point,
"Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
>> >
>> > [ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
>> >
>>
>> And just to make sure, at this point, your MSI irq 4341 affinity
>> (/proc/irq/4341/smp_affinity) still points to '2'?
>
>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >
> > [ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
> >
>
> And just to make sure, at this point, your MSI irq 4341 affinity
> (/proc/irq/4341/smp_affinity) still points to '2'?
Actually, it's 0xD. From the kernel's perspective the mask
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:38:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:57:26PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > As you have the failing system, you need to do more detective work and
> > help me out. Can you try this debug patch and send across the dmesg after
> > the
>
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:57:26PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> As you have the failing system, you need to do more detective work and
> help me out. Can you try this debug patch and send across the dmesg after the
> bug happens and also can you try different compiler to see if something
> cha
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:16:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:35:14PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > Weird. Then the bug can only happen if for some reason, "mask = map"
> > didn't happen in fixup_irqs(). Can you send us the disassembly of the
> > fixup_irqs()
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:35:14PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Weird. Then the bug can only happen if for some reason, "mask = map"
> didn't happen in fixup_irqs(). Can you send us the disassembly of the
> fixup_irqs()?
Attached.
--D
(gdb) disassemble fixup_irqs
Dump of assembler code for f
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:58:29AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:37:59PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 04:57:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can you s
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:37:59PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 04:57:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >
> > > Can you send us your system's dmesg aswell as output of /proc/interrupts?
> >
> > h
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 04:57:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > Can you send us your system's dmesg aswell as output of /proc/interrupts?
>
> http://sweaglesw.net/~djwong/docs/dmesg
> http://sweaglesw.net/~djwong/docs/int
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Can you send us your system's dmesg aswell as output of /proc/interrupts?
http://sweaglesw.net/~djwong/docs/dmesg
http://sweaglesw.net/~djwong/docs/interrupts
--D
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 01:09:54PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:40:15AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > Does this problem happen only under certain stress or something simple, like
> >
> > boot the kernel
> > echo 2 > /proc/irq/114/smp_affinity
> > wait for irq
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:40:15AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Does this problem happen only under certain stress or something simple, like
>
> boot the kernel
> echo 2 > /proc/irq/114/smp_affinity
> wait for irq to hit the cpu1.
> echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
>
> will immmd
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:33:01AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:13:42AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > I see. Your system should have 4 or 8 logical cpu's right. So you must be
> > using logical flat mode, right?
>
> I believe so. The system has two Xeon 5150s wi
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:13:42AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> I see. Your system should have 4 or 8 logical cpu's right. So you must be
> using logical flat mode, right?
I believe so. The system has two Xeon 5150s with an Intel 5000 chipset
of some sort.
> When this bug happens, what does
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:36:47AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:23:10AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > Darrick, I see a kernel bug in this area(which is already filled with bugs,
> > and I am looking into ways to fix them). Are you making sure that
> > between s
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:23:10AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Darrick, I see a kernel bug in this area(which is already filled with bugs,
> and I am looking into ways to fix them). Are you making sure that
> between step-1 and step-2, that interrupts actually started arriving at cpu1?
>
> i
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 05:44:27PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm seeing a driver hang with 2.6.22-rc3 while being slightly stupid
> about offlining CPUs. I suspect that this problem extends beyond a
> particular machine, as I've been able to replicate it with an IBM x3650
> an
>
> This is just getting confusing.
>
> Emmanuel Fust. Please play with /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity by
and and
> confirm that you can move your irqs. This will confirm it
is the decision
> part.
>
Ok, as planned, you're right ;-) , playing with
/proc/irq/*/smp_affinity let me move irqs.
Emmanuel
"Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:18:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> I doubt it. The practical problem is that cpu_down does not
>> and by design can not call the irq balancing part properly
>> and I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that we d
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:18:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I doubt it. The practical problem is that cpu_down does not
> and by design can not call the irq balancing part properly
> and I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that we don't migrate
> irq properly.
>
> So I'm guessing it
> As a side note, on my very old SMP machine, 2.6.20 correctly
> load-balance IRQs across CPU but 2.6.21 not. I know that
> in-kernel IRQ load balancer is marked as deprecated and
> somewhat broken, but with your report it make me think it
> could be a bug in the IRQ rerouting part in my case too
> There exists a similar scenario. Set the IRQ affinity to a
bunch of
> CPUs, watch /proc/interrupts to see which CPU is actually
servicing the
> interrupts, then offline that CPU. The kernel does not
reroute the IRQ
> to any of the other CPUs and the device also hangs.
>
> The furthest that I've
"Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm seeing a driver hang with 2.6.22-rc3 while being slightly stupid
> about offlining CPUs. I suspect that this problem extends beyond a
> particular machine, as I've been able to replicate it with an IBM x3650
> and an IBM x3755. Th
Hi there,
I'm seeing a driver hang with 2.6.22-rc3 while being slightly stupid
about offlining CPUs. I suspect that this problem extends beyond a
particular machine, as I've been able to replicate it with an IBM x3650
and an IBM x3755. This is what I'm doing:
1) I tie an IRQ to a particular CPU
37 matches
Mail list logo
