Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933072AbXHJJMS (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:12:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754678AbXHJJL5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:11:57 -0400 Received: from mx2.go2.pl ([193.17.41.42]:33456 "EHLO poczta.o2.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752417AbXHJJL4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:11:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:12:31 +0200 From: Jarek Poplawski To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thomas Gleixner , John Stoffel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, vignaud@xandmail.fr, marcin.slusarz@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc2: WARNING: at kernel/irq/resend.c:70 check_irq_resend() Message-ID: <20070810091231.GH1764@ff.dom.local> References: <18107.11431.838905.331157@stoffel.org> <20070809155445.GA5161@ff.dom.local> <1186733140.12828.45.camel@chaos> <20070810082346.GD1764@ff.dom.local> <20070810083050.GA4545@elte.hu> <20070810084924.GF1764@ff.dom.local> <20070810085611.GA11639@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070810085611.GA11639@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1389 Lines: 34 On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:56:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: ... > this changes the picture completely and makes the IO-APIC/local-APIC hw > retrigger code/logic the main suspect. I think you right that it's quite > bogus to hw-retrigger level irqs, and that could be confusing the > IO-APIC (or the local APIC, or both). > > and i think i see why my first sw-resend patch didnt do the trick: > > > > - if (!desc->chip || !desc->chip->retrigger || > > > - !desc->chip->retrigger(irq)) { > > > + if (desc->handle_irq == handle_edge_irq) { > > > + if (desc->chip->retrigger) > > > + desc->chip->retrigger(irq); > > > + return; > > > + } > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > > we used the hw-resend method unconditionally, right? Right: unconditionally on a condition they are not edges... But, since not resending at all seems to work so good in testing, I thought, _SW_RESEND could be considered as an unnecessarily complicated alternative. Now, I'm a bit confused... Jarek P. - 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/