Re: 2.6.23-rc2: WARNING: at kernel/irq/resend.c:70 check_irq_resend()

[Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 11:33:53AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> wrote:
> 
> > > > > +               }
> > > > >  #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...
> 
> the idea is multi-pronged:
> 
>  - Primarily, we want to fix the regression. 2.6.20 worked, 2.6.21 
>    didnt, that has to be fixed, no matter what - end of story. But we've 
>    got a wide selection of patches for that purpose now, so what matters 
>    at this point is the secondary question:
> 
>  - we want to know _why exactly_ the hang happens. We now have a pretty 
>    good theory: hw-resend hangs the IO-APIC. (there is a delicate dance
>    between local APICs and IO-APICs for level-triggered irqs, and if we
>    interject via hw-resending via the local APIC, existing races, hw
>    bugs or weaknesses in our hw-resend implementation might be exposed)
> 
> and even though we now have a wide selection of patches we really want 
> to get to the bottom of the problem so that we can fix the bug that got 
> exposed: apparently hw resend doesnt always work with level-triggered 
> irqs.
> 
> Note that the hw-resend sequence can trigger _even without our original 
> patch that triggered the regression_, it's just much less likely to 
> happen, so this is a pre-existing IO-APIC/APIC code bug that could 
> trigger anytime, and which we want to see fixed.
> 
> To confirm this theory - does the debug-patch below fix the hang? If it 
> fixes the hang then the theory is confirmed and then the right solution 
> is to retrigger an IRQ for level-triggered irqs with the proper 
> trigger-type set.
> 
> 	Ingo

Ingo: I think, you have to do this in x86_64, and there is probably
send_IPI_mask used for this (but I can miss something...).

I think, Marcin will not be able to do this and report before monday,
but,
Jean-Baptiste: of course current Ingo's or Thomas' patches are
more urgent, so if you could break the current test and try this
(maybe after Ingo acks this yet?) with eg. clean 2.6.23-rc1 or 2.6.22?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jarek P.

> 
> ------------------>
> Not-Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> 
> Index: linux/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
> +++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
> @@ -735,7 +735,8 @@ void fastcall send_IPI_self(int vector)
>  	 * Wait for idle.
>  	 */
>  	apic_wait_icr_idle();
> -	cfg = APIC_DM_FIXED | APIC_DEST_SELF | vector | APIC_DEST_LOGICAL;
> +	cfg = APIC_DM_FIXED | APIC_DEST_SELF | vector | APIC_DEST_LOGICAL |
> +		APIC_INT_LEVELTRIG;
>  	/*
>  	 * Send the IPI. The write to APIC_ICR fires this off.
>  	 */
> 
-
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/