From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261538AbVGLQUe (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:20:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261570AbVGLQSi (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:18:38 -0400 Received: from relay01.pair.com ([209.68.5.15]:63503 "HELO relay01.pair.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261544AbVGLQQ4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:16:56 -0400 X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.107 Message-ID: <42D3ECF3.9050001@cybsft.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:16:51 -0500 From: "K.R. Foley" Organization: Cybersoft Solutions, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Daniel Walker , Karsten Wiese , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24 References: <200507121223.10704.annabellesgarden@yahoo.de> <20050712140251.GB18296@elte.hu> <1121178339.10199.8.camel@c-67-188-6-232.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20050712142828.GA20798@elte.hu> <42D3D7ED.7000805@cybsft.com> <20050712160150.GA23943@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20050712160150.GA23943@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * K.R. Foley wrote: > > >>Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >>>* Daniel Walker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I observed a situation on a dual xeon where IOAPIC_POSTFLUSH , if on, >>>>would actually cause spurious interrupts. It was odd cause it's >>>>suppose to stop them .. If there was a lot of interrupt traffic on one >>>>IRQ , it would cause interrupt traffic on another IRQ. This would >>>>result in "nobody cared" messages , and the storming IRQ line would >>>>get shutdown. >>>> >>>>This would only happen in PREEMPT_RT . >>> >>> >>>does it happen with the latest kernel too? There were a couple of things >>>broken in the IOAPIC code in various earlier versions. >>> >>> Ingo >> >>Is this why I have been able to boot the latest versions without the >>noapic option (and without noticeable keyboard repeat problems) or has >>it just been dumb luck? > > > yes, i think it's related - the IO-APIC code is now more robust than > ever, and that's why any known-broken system would be important to > re-check. > > Ingo > Well I have booted -27 a couple of times and -28 once now without supplying the noapic boot option and I haven't seen any of the keyboard repeat problems that I reported late last week. This was on my dual 2.6 Xeon w/HT. I have never seen this behavior on any of my older systems. Because of the fact that the problem showed up sporadically, I can't say for sure that it is gone. However, so far so good. I will report any changes that I see. -- kr