[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070810091954.GI1764@ff.dom.local>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:19:54 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jean-Baptiste Vignaud <vignaud@...dmail.fr>,
"marcin\.slusarz" <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>,
torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
shemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-net <linux-net@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch (testing)] Re: 2.6.20->2.6.21 - networking dies after random time
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 11:08:33AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:
>
> > On 10-08-2007 10:05, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > ...
> > > But suppressing the resend is not fixing the driver problem. The
> > > problem can show up with spurious interrupts and with interrupts on
> > > a shared PCI interrupt line at any time. It just might take weeks
> > > instead of minutes.
> >
> > Maybe I miss something but it's not the same!
>
> _now_ i finally understand what you probably meant: because sw-resend
> worked and hw-resend didnt, it's hw-resend that is causing the breakage,
> not any driver or irqflow bug - correct?
All correct! There was also checked a possibility it can be not
hw itself, but wrong way of handling after hw (acking too late). This
was false idea (or bad implementation), so it looks like hw vs lapic
problem.
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