[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070810100513.GA3279@ff.dom.local>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:05:13 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, vignaud@...dmail.fr,
marcin.slusarz@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
linux-net@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc2: WARNING: at kernel/irq/resend.c:70 check_irq_resend()
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 11:33:53AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:
>
> > > > > + }
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND
> > >
> > > we used the hw-resend method unconditionally, right?
> >
> > Right: unconditionally on a condition they are not edges...
> >
> > But, since not resending at all seems to work so good in testing, I
> > thought, _SW_RESEND could be considered as an unnecessarily
> > complicated alternative.
> >
> > Now, I'm a bit confused...
>
> the idea is multi-pronged:
>
> - Primarily, we want to fix the regression. 2.6.20 worked, 2.6.21
> didnt, that has to be fixed, no matter what - end of story. But we've
> got a wide selection of patches for that purpose now, so what matters
> at this point is the secondary question:
>
> - we want to know _why exactly_ the hang happens. We now have a pretty
> good theory: hw-resend hangs the IO-APIC. (there is a delicate dance
> between local APICs and IO-APICs for level-triggered irqs, and if we
> interject via hw-resending via the local APIC, existing races, hw
> bugs or weaknesses in our hw-resend implementation might be exposed)
>
> and even though we now have a wide selection of patches we really want
> to get to the bottom of the problem so that we can fix the bug that got
> exposed: apparently hw resend doesnt always work with level-triggered
> irqs.
>
> Note that the hw-resend sequence can trigger _even without our original
> patch that triggered the regression_, it's just much less likely to
> happen, so this is a pre-existing IO-APIC/APIC code bug that could
> trigger anytime, and which we want to see fixed.
>
> To confirm this theory - does the debug-patch below fix the hang? If it
> fixes the hang then the theory is confirmed and then the right solution
> is to retrigger an IRQ for level-triggered irqs with the proper
> trigger-type set.
>
> Ingo
Ingo: I think, you have to do this in x86_64, and there is probably
send_IPI_mask used for this (but I can miss something...).
I think, Marcin will not be able to do this and report before monday,
but,
Jean-Baptiste: of course current Ingo's or Thomas' patches are
more urgent, so if you could break the current test and try this
(maybe after Ingo acks this yet?) with eg. clean 2.6.23-rc1 or 2.6.22?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jarek P.
>
> ------------------>
> Not-Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>
> Index: linux/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
> +++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
> @@ -735,7 +735,8 @@ void fastcall send_IPI_self(int vector)
> * Wait for idle.
> */
> apic_wait_icr_idle();
> - cfg = APIC_DM_FIXED | APIC_DEST_SELF | vector | APIC_DEST_LOGICAL;
> + cfg = APIC_DM_FIXED | APIC_DEST_SELF | vector | APIC_DEST_LOGICAL |
> + APIC_INT_LEVELTRIG;
> /*
> * Send the IPI. The write to APIC_ICR fires this off.
> */
>
-
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