Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 11:34:00 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John <jw@nuclearfallout.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: revert non-working patch to affinity defaults
Message-ID: <20150404093400.GA20462@gmail.com>
References: <20150403005022.3143.73693.stgit@jbrandeb-cp2.jf.intel.com>
 <20150403065557.GA12815@gmail.com>
 <20150403171336.000075f2@unknown>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150403171336.000075f2@unknown>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1141
Lines: 32


* Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com> wrote:

> > Now this is just a small annoyance that should not really matter - 
> > it would be nice to figure out the real reason for why the irqs 
> > move back to CPU#0.
> > 
> > In theory the same could happen to 'irqbalanced' as well, if it 
> > calls shortly after an irq was registered - so this is not a bug 
> > we want to ignore.
> 
> Let me know if I can do something to help, the IRQ code is a bit of 
> a steep learning curve, so the chances of me fixing it are small.

Well, as a starter, if you can reproduce it on a system (I cannot), 
then try to stick a few printks in there to print out the affinity 
mask as it gets changed plus dump_stack(), and see who changes it 
back?

Chances are it's irqbalanced? If not then the stack dump will tell. It 
shouldn't be too chatty.

(trace_printk() if you prefer traces.)

Thanks,

	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/