From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "B.G. Bruce" Subject: Re: Driver domain - NEW issue: IRQ handling error Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:09:45 -0400 Message-ID: <1107310185.4411.109.camel@master.vms.security> References: <1107263493.4411.22.camel@master.vms.security> <3d8eece205020117282731fd2@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: bgb@nt-nv.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <3d8eece205020117282731fd2@mail.gmail.com> Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Christian.Limpach@cl.cam.ac.uk Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Yeah, the SATA and PATA contollers are grabbing 18 as well. This box doesn't have any SATA drives, so I can exclude 00:1f.2 (won't disable in the bios), but what do I do about the PATA/EIDE (00:1f.1). I need it! B. On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 21:28, Christian Limpach wrote: > On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:11:34 -0400, B.G. Bruce wrote: > > dmesg on dom0 gives: > > irq 18: nobody cared! > > Disabling IRQ #18 > > > > and a dmesg of the driver domain shows that the nic hooked IRQ 18: > > > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 5.5.4-k2-NAPI > > Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Intel Corporation. > > PCI: Obtained IRQ 18 for device 0000:01:01.0 > > PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:01:01.0 to 64 > > e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection > > Do you have any other devices which get assigned IRQ 18? Xen prints > information about the interrupt routing when it starts, you can read > this information with xm dmesg. Also lspci -v should show for each > device not hidden from dom0 which interrupt is used by the device. > FWIW, I've seen "irq nobody cared" on the IRQ assigned to the USB > controller and a kernel without USB support. > > > Am I correct in that the interrupt that should have been sent to the > > driver domain was instead sent to dom0? or what happened? If I don't > > have the driver dom setup correctly, would someone please explain what > > I'm doing wrong? > > Yes, it should have been sent to the driver domain. If there's a 2nd > device on IRQ 18 and this device is not hidden from dom0 and the 2nd > device gets an interrupt, it will go to dom0. This should be harmless > but apparently, it's not. > > christian > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl