Hi,
I see on my test box _excessive_ irqs for parport0:
[root@xeni ~]# cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
[ ... ]
7: 37316845 xen-pirq-pirq parport0
[ ... ]
24: 17698 xen-dyn-virq timer0
[ ... ]
Something is seriously wrong here ...
cheers,
Gerd
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:> Hi, > > I see on my test box _excessive_ irqs for parport0: > > [root@xeni ~]# cat /proc/interrupts > CPU0 > [ ... ] > 7: 37316845 xen-pirq-pirq parport0 > [ ... ] > 24: 17698 xen-dyn-virq timer0 > [ ... ] > > Something is seriously wrong here ...More info: [root@xeni ~]# cat /proc/interrupts CPU0 1: 0 xen-pirq-pirq i8042 3: 13 xen-pirq-pirq 4: 17 xen-pirq-pirq 7: 17797333 xen-pirq-pirq parport0 8: 1 xen-pirq-pirq rtc0 9: 0 xen-pirq-pirq acpi 16: 0 xen-pirq-pirq uhci_hcd:usb3, uhci_hcd:usb8 18: 0 xen-pirq-pirq uhci_hcd:usb5 19: 14697 xen-pirq-pirq ehci_hcd:usb1, uhci_hcd:usb7, ahci 20: 5142 xen-pirq-pirq eth0 21: 0 xen-pirq-pirq uhci_hcd:usb4 22: 240 xen-pirq-pirq HDA Intel 23: 0 xen-pirq-pirq ehci_hcd:usb2, uhci_hcd:usb6 (XEN) Guest interrupt information: (XEN) IRQ 1 Vec 40: type=IO-APIC-edge status=00000010 in-flight=0 domain-list=0(-S--), (XEN) IRQ 7 Vec 80: type=IO-APIC-level status=00000010 in-flight=1 domain-list=0(PS-M), (XEN) IRQ 8 Vec 88: type=IO-APIC-level status=00000010 in-flight=0 domain-list=0(-S--), (XEN) IRQ 9 Vec 96: type=IO-APIC-level status=00000010 in-flight=0 domain-list=0(-S--), (XEN) IRQ 16 Vec 33: type=IO-APIC-edge status=00000010 in-flight=0 domain-list=0(-S--), (XEN) IRQ 18 Vec 49: type=IO-APIC-edge status=00000010 in-flight=0 domain-list=0(-S--), (XEN) IRQ 19 Vec208: type=IO-APIC-edge status=00000010 in-flight=0 domain-list=0(-S--), (XEN) IRQ 20 Vec 57: type=IO-APIC-edge status=00000010 in-flight=0 domain-list=0(-S--), (XEN) IRQ 21 Vec 41: type=IO-APIC-edge status=00000010 in-flight=0 domain-list=0(-S--), (XEN) IRQ 22 Vec 65: type=IO-APIC-edge status=00000010 in-flight=0 domain-list=0(-S--), (XEN) IRQ 23 Vec216: type=IO-APIC-edge status=00000010 in-flight=0 domain-list=0(-S--), Note that IRQ 7 is *level* triggered and we have a bunch of *shared* irqs which are *edge* triggered. Given this I wonder my test box is able to stay up that long. cheers, Gerd _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 19/02/2009 15:28, "Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote:> Note that IRQ 7 is *level* triggered and we have a bunch of *shared* > irqs which are *edge* triggered. Given this I wonder my test box is > able to stay up that long.Yes, that looks completely backwards. Could pv_ops dom0 be getting the trigger flag in IO-APIC redir entries inverted somehow? -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser wrote:> On 19/02/2009 15:28, "Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> Note that IRQ 7 is *level* triggered and we have a bunch of *shared* >> irqs which are *edge* triggered. Given this I wonder my test box is >> able to stay up that long. >> > > Yes, that looks completely backwards. Could pv_ops dom0 be getting the > trigger flag in IO-APIC redir entries inverted somehow? >I guess that''s possible, but the code in question does just pass the trigger and polarity straight through. What does it say about the trigger and polarity for those interrupts in the dmesg output? I guess it would explain quite a few of the "lost interrupt" symptoms we''ve been seeing, but I''m surprised things work at all well if they really are reversed. J _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:> I guess that''s possible, but the code in question does just pass the > trigger and polarity straight through.Notice: #define ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE (u8) 0x00 whereas for the io apic 0 == edge. cheers, Gerd _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:> Notice: > #define ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE (u8) 0x00 > > whereas for the io apic 0 == edge. >Yeah, just noticed that :/ Sometimes its amazing how badly you can screw things up and they keep staggering on. I wonder if this will help our mysterious ahci problem. J _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:> Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Notice: >> #define ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE (u8) 0x00 >> >> whereas for the io apic 0 == edge. >> > > Yeah, just noticed that :/ > > Sometimes its amazing how badly you can screw things up and they keep > staggering on.Yep.> I wonder if this will help our mysterious ahci problem.IRQ7 storm is gone. Box is up and running. Doing a kernel build right now. Usually it isn''t able to finish it before ahci says goodbye, lets see how it works out now ... cheers, Gerd _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:> IRQ7 storm is gone. > Box is up and running. Doing a kernel build right now. > Usually it isn''t able to finish it before ahci says goodbye, > lets see how it works out now ... >I booted to usermode with ahci, which is a first - it never managed to probe the drives before. Good work, J _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 19/02/2009 16:23, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:>> Yes, that looks completely backwards. Could pv_ops dom0 be getting the >> trigger flag in IO-APIC redir entries inverted somehow? >> > > I guess that''s possible, but the code in question does just pass the > trigger and polarity straight through. What does it say about the > trigger and polarity for those interrupts in the dmesg output? > > I guess it would explain quite a few of the "lost interrupt" symptoms > we''ve been seeing, but I''m surprised things work at all well if they > really are reversed.Comparing with a non-pv_ops dom0 on that same system would be an obvious next step. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:> Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> IRQ7 storm is gone. >> Box is up and running. Doing a kernel build right now. >> Usually it isn''t able to finish it before ahci says goodbye, >> lets see how it works out now ... > > I booted to usermode with ahci, which is a first - it never managed to > probe the drives before.Finished two kernel rebuilds, still up''n''running ... cheers, Gerd _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser wrote:> Comparing with a non-pv_ops dom0 on that same system would be an obvious > next step.Yeah, that was it. I was passing the ACPI triggering value directly to the APIC, but they have reversed senses. Seems to have fixed the AHCI problem for both Gerd and me. J _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 19/02/2009 16:56, "Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote:> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >>> IRQ7 storm is gone. >>> Box is up and running. Doing a kernel build right now. >>> Usually it isn''t able to finish it before ahci says goodbye, >>> lets see how it works out now ... >> >> I booted to usermode with ahci, which is a first - it never managed to >> probe the drives before. > > Finished two kernel rebuilds, still up''n''running ...Great news that bug is finally dead. :-) K. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel