From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:29:31 +0100 Subject: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 61s! problem In-Reply-To: References: <20100628090036.GA28510@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20100628102931.GA30050@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 03:50:24PM +0530, Harishkumar V wrote: > Will capture the further messages and mail u. Why an IRQ got struck, is > their a way to handle this.... Normally, the kernel will disable the interrupt so the system can continue to (mostly) function. However, people like to return IRQ_HANDLED from interrupt handlers, even when they've found nothing to do. This prevents the kernel from rescuing you from the stuck-IRQ problem. Interrupt handlers are supposed to return IRQ_HANDLED if they did something to handle the IRQ, or IRQ_NONE if they found nothing to do. I can't say much more than that - I've no idea what hardware you're running the kernel on, and therefore I can't guess what IRQ92 might be.