[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070405062000.GA1717@ff.dom.local>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:20:00 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Christian Kujau <christian@...ouse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
malte@...ouse.de, Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.20.4: NETDEV WATCHDOG and lockups
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 02:20:23PM +0100, Christian Kujau wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >So, it's a lot sooner than before. (BTW, isn't there anything
> >in debug log?)
>
> No, nothing. I've set up remote-syslgging to the other node (node1
> logging to node2 and vice versa) - nothing :(
>
> >I see both CPUs did interrupt handling again.
>
> Yes, when booting with 'lapic' both CPUs/cores are handling interrupts
> again. However, since 'lapic' seems to lead to crashes here, we would be
> more than happy to just boot with 'noapic' but have 'irqbalance'
> working. Unfortunately, irqbalance is unable to write to
> /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity (did not help to disable CONFIG_IRQBALANCE).
I hope you are right, but maybe it's not lapic's fault?
Probably the fastest way to know would be to try with
some other card, yet.
> >Maybe it's a real locking problem. Here are some more
> >suggestions for testing (if you don't find anything better):
> >- try without SMP, so: 'acpi=off lapic nosmp'
BTW, I'm not sure acpi should be turned off with any
modern hardware. Did you tried to compile with
CONFIG_ACPI = y, all other acpi options off, and maybe
to tweak only with 'pci=...' boot parameter?
Regards,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists