Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934008Ab3CNQKG (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:10:06 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49478 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933603Ab3CNQKD (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:10:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:09:59 +0100 (CET) From: Jiri Kosina To: Alan Stern Cc: Peter Hurley , Thomas Meyer , Shawn Starr , Kernel development list , USB list , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [3.9-rc1] irq 16: nobody cared (was [3.9-rc1] very poor interrupt responses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1113 Lines: 30 On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > > 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. So I will try a bisect, but it'll take some time so that I could claim it to be trustworthy. Therefore in case anyone has any idea in parallel, I am all ears. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- 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/