Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:46:39 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Problem with 2.6.17-mm2 |
| |
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 10:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > So in fact this just silently acks spurious interrupts which have an > > > hw_irq_controller assigned. If there is no action, then nothing has > > > called setup_irq/request_irq for this interrupt line and therefor it is > > > an spurious interrupt which should not happen. > > > > > > > > > genirq makes these visible and informs noisily about those events. > > > > > > > hm, OK. I guess we can let it ride for now. Later we can decide whether > > we need to shut that warning up. I suspect we should, if the machine's > > working OK. > > We can make it once per IRQ.
yeah. A bit more sophisticated method would be to use a new sticky IRQ_SPURIOUS bit and only print a warning if it goes from 0 to 1. Whenever a real handler is installed the bit gets cleared. This will make behavior a bit more deterministic than 'once per bootup', and it will still not spam the box with printks. (Or never let that bit go from 1 to 0 - this effectively implements the once-per-bootup warning.)
> In fact I think the original behaviour is a BUG. You have no chance to > notice that your box gets flooded by such interrupts. With my > willingly asserted spurious interrupts the box simply stalls in a > flood of interrupts without any notice.
hm, doesnt note_interrupt()/irqpoll detect and handle this to a certain degree?
Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |