Re: [3.9-rc1] irq 16: nobody cared (was [3.9-rc1] very poor interrupt responses)

[Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 08:19:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:12:49AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Mar 2013, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > 
> > > > Just a datapoint -- I have put a trivial debugging patch in place, and it
> > > > reveals that "nobody cared" for irq 16 happens long after last
> > > >
> > > >         I915_WRITE(GMBUS4 + reg_offset, 0);
> > > >
> > > > has been performed in gmbus_wait_hw_status(). On the other hand, if I
> > > > comment out both GMBUS4 register offset writes in gmbus_wait_hw_status(),
> > > > then it of course falls back to GPIO bit-banging, but the "nobody cared"
> > > > for irq 16 is gone.
> > > >
> > > > So it seems like something gets severely confused by the I915_WRITE to
> > > > GMBUS4 + reg_offset. So far this seems to have been reported solely on
> > > > Lenovos as far as I can see (although a completely different types), so it
> > > > might be some platform-specific quirk?
> > > >
> > > > Honestly, I still don't understand how all the GMBUS stuff relates to IRQ
> > > > 16 at all.
> > > 
> > > that device is using
> > > i915 0000:00:02.0: irq 44 for MSI/MSI-X
> > > 
> > > so can you try to boot with pci=nomsi?
> > 
> > Yes, switching from MSI to IO-APIC-fasteoi makes the report about lost 
> > interrupts go away.
> > 
> > My understanding from the other mail is that DAniel Vetter already has an 
> > idea what might be going wrong with IRQ acking on GM45 chipsets; hopefully 
> > this datapoint regarding MSI will fit into it.
> 
> Yep, there's a big comment in the irq handler for that chipset that we
> have a gaping race with when using MSI interrupts. Although the comment
> bodly claims that the race is small enough to avoid the dreaded "nobody
> cared" message. Looks like gmbus is good at hitting that race - on newer
> chips it already brought up a similar race in handling pch interrupts.
> 
> Can you please give the below patch a whirl? It removes the probably race
> msi race avoidance code and replaces it with the same trick Paulo used to
> fix pch irq handling races.

Still nobody cares about irq16.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre