On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 16:02 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Karsten Wiese <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ingo
> >
> > I've refined io_apic.c a little more:
>
> great. I've applied these changes and have released the -28 patch. (note
> that the last chunk of your patch was malformed, have applied it by
> hand.)
>
> i'm wondering what your thoughts are about IOAPIC_POSTFLUSH - i had to
> turn it on unconditionally again, to get rid of spurious interrupts and
> outright interrupt storms (and resulting lockups) on some systems.
> IOAPIC_POSTFLUSH is now causing much of the IO-APIC related IRQ handling
> overhead.
I observed a situation on a dual xeon where IOAPIC_POSTFLUSH , if on,
would actually cause spurious interrupts. It was odd cause it's suppose
to stop them .. If there was a lot of interrupt traffic on one IRQ , it
would cause interrupt traffic on another IRQ. This would result in
"nobody cared" messages , and the storming IRQ line would get shutdown.
This would only happen in PREEMPT_RT .
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |