[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.30-rc4] r8169: avoid losing MSI interrupts
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 07:43:52PM +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> David Dillow wrote, On 08/22/2009 10:43 PM:
>>> On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 05:07 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>> (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>>>>> David Dillow <> writes:
>>>>>> Re-looking at the code, I'd guess that some IRQ status line is getting
>>>>>> stuck high, but I don't see why -- we should acknowledge all outstanding
>>>>>> interrupts each time through the loop, whether we care about them or
>>>>>> not.
>>>>>> Could reproduce a problem with the following patch applied, and send the
>>>>>> full dmesg, please?
>>>>> Here is what I get.
>>>>> r8169 screaming irq status 00000085 mask 0000ffff event 0000803f napi 0000001d
>>>> And now that the machine has come out of it, that was followed by:
>>>> Looks like the soft lockup did not manage to trigger in this case.
>>> I need some more context, please. What is the network load through this
>>> NIC when you have the issues? Light, heavy? Can you give me more details
>>> about the machine? A full dmesg from boot until this happens would help
>>> quite a bit. At a minimum it would help answer which version of the chip
>>> we're dealing with and what the machine it is in looks like.
>>> Can you reproduce this with pci=nomsi? I'm assuming it the chip running
>>> in MSI mode.
>>> Also, can you reproduce it when booting UP (or maxcpus=1)? I'm thinking
>>> about a race between rtl8169_interrupt() and rtl8169_poll(), but it
>>> isn't jumping out at me.
>>> Also, I'm having connectivity troubles this weekend, so my response may
>>> be spotty. :(
>> BTW, FYI, it seems Michal stopped tracking this problem, but he
>> found this commit problematic as well.
>> From: Michal Soltys <>
>> Subject: Re: r8169 (+others ?) and note_interrupt performance hit on 2.6.30.x
>> Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:54:47 +0200
> Well - not really stopped, but not sure what to look at before that
> particular commit (as cpu load for the tests I've done increased rather
> significantly as well before that, and after 2.6.29 - but it doesn't
> seem to be related to the driver). And I was away for over a week...
> As fot the changes that commit introduced, here's is link to the mail
> with the oprofile I did back then:
> I'm happy to assist any way I can.

Very nice :-) I guess David might be interested in your dmesg etc.
(as above) too.

Jarek P.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-23 19:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans