Messages in this thread | | | From | Edward Donovan <> | Date | Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:31:29 -0500 | Subject | Re: need help on a DEADLOCK problem related to function try_one_irq() |
| |
Yes, I will try to do that in the next couple days. Thanks -
Ed
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Wang, Warner <warner.wang@hp.com> wrote: > Hi Thomas and Edward, > > This patch works fine for our problems, but I'm not sure if it works for the recent submit "genirq: fix regression in irqfixup, irqpoll" "52553ddffad76ccf192d4dd9ce88d5818f57f62a", which submitted by Edward Donovan. > > Edward can you help verify it on your environment? > > > Thanks, > -Warner > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de] > Sent: 2012年11月23日 PM 5:09 > To: Wang, Warner > Cc: Wang, Song-Bo (Stoney) > Subject: Re: need help on a DEADLOCK problem related to function try_one_irq() > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2012, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> Warner, >> >> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012, Wang, Warner wrote: >> >> please send such bug reports to the kernel mailinglist in the future. >> >> > We met a problem on some of our x86 server and after a few weeks >> > trace-down effort, we believe the problem is in the file >> > "linux/kernel/irq/spurious.c". We created a patch but we are not >> > 100% sure if it is correct or complete. That is why we want to >> > consult you. >> >> You spotted the problem right, but I'm not sure at the first glance, >> whether this is correct. I need to go back into history and figure out >> why we added that call in the first place. It looks fundamentally >> wrong. >> >> Thanks for analyzing it. I'll keep you posted on my findings. > > Can you try the patch below ? > > Thanks, > > tglx > > --- > kernel/irq/spurious.c | 8 +++----- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > Index: tip/kernel/irq/spurious.c > =================================================================== > --- tip.orig/kernel/irq/spurious.c > +++ tip/kernel/irq/spurious.c > @@ -80,13 +80,11 @@ static int try_one_irq(int irq, struct i > > /* > * All handlers must agree on IRQF_SHARED, so we test just the > - * first. Check for action->next as well. > + * first. > */ > action = desc->action; > if (!action || !(action->flags & IRQF_SHARED) || > - (action->flags & __IRQF_TIMER) || > - (action->handler(irq, action->dev_id) == IRQ_HANDLED) || > - !action->next) > + (action->flags & __IRQF_TIMER)) > goto out; > > /* Already running on another processor */ @@ -104,7 +102,7 @@ static int try_one_irq(int irq, struct i > do { > if (handle_irq_event(desc) == IRQ_HANDLED) > ret = IRQ_HANDLED; > - action = desc->action; > + action = action->next; > } while ((desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING) && action); > desc->istate &= ~IRQS_POLL_INPROGRESS; > out: -- 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/
| |