linux-kernel - Re: [3.9-rc1] irq 16: nobody cared (was [3.9-rc1] very poor interrupt responses)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1363280764.26318.4.camel@thor.lan>
Date:	Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:06:04 -0400
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	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, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [3.9-rc1] irq 16: nobody cared  (was [3.9-rc1] very poor
 interrupt responses)

On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 17:46 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, March 14, 2013 05:09:59 PM Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> This one is a candidate to focus on I think:
> 
> commit 181380b702eee1a9aca51354d7b87c7b08541fcf
> Author: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
> Date:   Sat Feb 16 11:58:34 2013 -0700
> 
>     PCI/ACPI: Don't cache _PRT, and don't associate them with bus numbers

This patch __fixed__ this problem for me in linux-next back in February.

Rafael, did you hold back some ACPI patches from 3.9 that would have
made fix no longer applicable?


--
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/