[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1303141709000.30118@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:09:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>,
Shawn Starr <shawn.starr@...ers.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [3.9-rc1] irq 16: nobody cared (was [3.9-rc1] very poor interrupt
responses)
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > I don't think I have seen this message on rc1+ (8343bce, to be precise),
> > > but I have definitely seen sluggish system response on that kernel as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > Attaching lspci, /proc/interrupts and dmesg.
> >
> > Can you try to do a git bisect for this? Is the sluggish system
> > response clear enough that you can tell reliably when it is present and
> > when it isn't?
>
> That was my first thought, but unfortunately I am afraid there will be
> point at which I will easily make a bisection mistake, as the
> responsiveness of the system varies over time, so it's not really a
> 100% objective measure.
So I will try a bisect, but it'll take some time so that I could claim it
to be trustworthy.
Therefore in case anyone has any idea in parallel, I am all ears.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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