lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [3.9-rc1] irq 16: nobody cared (was [3.9-rc1] very poor interrupt responses)
    On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Alan Stern wrote:

    > > [ 4.116847] irq 16: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
    > > [ 4.116849] Pid: 1, comm: systemd Not tainted 3.9.0-rc2-00188-g6c23cbb #186
    > > [ 4.116850] Call Trace:
    > > [ 4.116860] <IRQ> [<ffffffff810db0f8>] __report_bad_irq+0x38/0xf0
    > > [ 4.116862] [<ffffffff810db3a3>] note_interrupt+0x1f3/0x240
    > > [ 4.116865] [<ffffffff810d8977>] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x147/0x230
    > > [ 4.116867] [<ffffffff810d8aa9>] handle_irq_event+0x49/0x70
    > > [ 4.116869] [<ffffffff810dbbc1>] handle_fasteoi_irq+0x61/0x100
    > > [ 4.116873] [<ffffffff81004689>] handle_irq+0x59/0x150
    > > [ 4.116877] [<ffffffff8104e916>] ? irq_enter+0x16/0x80
    > > [ 4.116879] [<ffffffff81003d4b>] do_IRQ+0x5b/0xe0
    > > [ 4.116883] [<ffffffff815563ad>] common_interrupt+0x6d/0x6d
    > > [ 4.116888] <EOI> [<ffffffff81320dc1>] ? cfb_imageblit+0x581/0x5b0
    > > [ 4.116891] [<ffffffff8131e019>] bit_putcs+0x329/0x560
    > > [ 4.116893] [<ffffffff8131dc8f>] ? bit_cursor+0x5cf/0x630
    > > [ 4.116896] [<ffffffff81317a28>] fbcon_putcs+0xf8/0x130
    > > [ 4.116898] [<ffffffff8131dcf0>] ? bit_cursor+0x630/0x630
    > > [ 4.116900] [<ffffffff8131a27e>] fbcon_redraw+0x16e/0x1e0
    > > [ 4.116902] [<ffffffff8131a554>] fbcon_scroll+0x264/0xe40
    > > [ 4.116905] [<ffffffff8138a263>] scrup+0x113/0x120
    > > [ 4.116907] [<ffffffff8138a4d0>] lf+0x80/0x90
    > > [ 4.116910] [<ffffffff8138e1dd>] do_con_trol+0xcd/0x1360
    > > [ 4.116912] [<ffffffff8138f725>] do_con_write+0x2b5/0xa10
    > > [ 4.116915] [<ffffffff81552bb7>] ? __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x237/0x2e0
    > > [ 4.116917] [<ffffffff8138fed9>] con_write+0x19/0x30
    > > [ 4.116920] [<ffffffff8137823b>] do_output_char+0x1eb/0x220
    > > [ 4.116922] [<ffffffff813782b6>] process_output+0x46/0x70
    > > [ 4.116924] [<ffffffff81378b0f>] n_tty_write+0x13f/0x2f0
    > > [ 4.116928] [<ffffffff8107a900>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x2b0/0x2b0
    > > [ 4.116930] [<ffffffff8137553c>] tty_write+0x1cc/0x280
    > > [ 4.116932] [<ffffffff813789d0>] ? n_tty_ioctl+0x110/0x110
    > > [ 4.116934] [<ffffffff8137569d>] redirected_tty_write+0xad/0xc0
    > > [ 4.116937] [<ffffffff811733ab>] vfs_write+0xcb/0x130
    > > [ 4.116939] [<ffffffff81173bac>] sys_write+0x5c/0xa0
    > > [ 4.116943] [<ffffffff8155e4a9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
    > > [ 4.116943] handlers:
    > > [ 4.116959] [<ffffffffa0048450>] usb_hcd_irq [usbcore]
    > > [ 4.116960] Disabling IRQ #16
    > >
    > > 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.

    --
    Jiri Kosina
    SUSE Labs


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-03-14 23:02    [W:2.782 / U:0.152 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site