Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268011AbUIJXLe (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:11:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268005AbUIJXLe (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:11:34 -0400 Received: from pimout2-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.101]:60301 "EHLO pimout2-ext.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268011AbUIJXLN (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:11:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:10:52 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: LKML , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386 reduce spurious interrupt noise Message-ID: <20040910231052.GA3078@taniwha.stupidest.org> References: <20040902192820.GA6427@taniwha.stupidest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1737 Lines: 43 On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 11:23:20PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > - printk (KERN_INFO "APIC error on CPU%d: %02lx(%02lx)\n", > > + printk (KERN_DEBUG "APIC error on CPU%d: %02lx(%02lx)\n", > This should probably be KERN_ERR even. This is a serious condition -- if > you ever get such a message, then inter-APIC messages get corrupted and > this affects system's stability. These messages are very common on many platforms, infrequent (once very few days to twice a day at most in my observations) and seemingly harmless. I agree that if you get *many* of these certainly that would indicate there is a problem but I've not not heard a single instance of this and if that is the case we need to deal with it differently. > > - printk("spurious 8259A interrupt: IRQ%d.\n", irq); > > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "spurious 8259A interrupt: IRQ%d.\n", irq); > You may ever get a single message per system boot from this line. Sometimes as boot, though often in my experience several minutes after boot. > It encourages to have a look at the ERR counter in /proc/interrupts > to check for possible problems, though admittedly the suggestion > isn't especially clear. I think in *both* cases we want to detect a largish (more than 1 ever n seconds or so) number of these and then complain, not before and even then not excessively so that we printk our-selves to death. I'm not inclined to offer such a patch right now as it feels like it's fixing a problem nobody has reported. --cw - 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/