lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [Bug 60555] New: Some amount of ifconfig cause load average increase and system freeze
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Yaroslav Molochko <onorua@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry. I was not using this machine for quite a bit, I've updated to the new
> kernel and updated bug with the information you asked

Thanks.

Note that this appears to be vanilla v3.12, which has e1000e version
2.3.2-k in it. Intel maintains newer drivers out-of-tree at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/e1000/, and it's possible this is some
bug that has already been fixed. The current version there looks like
e1000e-2.5.4, released 2013-09-05.

I think only the Intel folks can help you out with this.

Bjorn

>> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:31 AM, <bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60555
>> >>
>> >> Bug ID: 60555
>> >> Summary: Some amount of ifconfig cause load average increase
>> >> and system freeze
>> >> Product: Drivers
>> >> Version: 2.5
>> >> Kernel Version: 3.10.0
>> >> Hardware: All
>> >> OS: Linux
>> >> Tree: Mainline
>> >> Status: NEW
>> >> Severity: normal
>> >> Priority: P1
>> >> Component: PCI
>> >> Assignee: drivers_pci@kernel-bugs.osdl.org
>> >> Reporter: onorua@gmail.com
>> >> Regression: No
>> >>
>> >> I've faced with the situation when system stopped to process any
>> >> request.
>> >> Further analysis showed that the load average was around 20, and was
>> >> constantly
>> >> increasing (the normal LA for this system is 0.3-1).
>> >
>> > Thanks for the report; sorry it fell through the cracks.
>> >
>> > Is this problem reproducible? If so, can you try to reproduce it on
>> > v3.11? Can you please attach a complete dmesg log and "lspci -vv" (as
>> > root) output to the bugzilla?
>> >
>> > The BUG_ON you're hitting is here, but I don't know what it means:
>> >
>> > #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS
>> > for (i = 0; i < nvec; i++)
>> > BUG_ON(irq_has_action(entry->irq + i));
>> > #endif
>>
>> What's the status of this? Is it still a problem? Should we just
>> close the bug as unreproducible?
>>
>> Bjorn
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-08 18:01    [W:0.692 / U:0.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site