From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc2: WARNING: at kernel/irq/resend.c:70 check_irq_resend() Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:12:31 +0200 Message-ID: <20070810091231.GH1764@ff.dom.local> References: <18107.11431.838905.331157@stoffel.org> <20070809155445.GA5161@ff.dom.local> <1186733140.12828.45.camel@chaos> <20070810082346.GD1764@ff.dom.local> <20070810083050.GA4545@elte.hu> <20070810084924.GF1764@ff.dom.local> <20070810085611.GA11639@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Gleixner , John Stoffel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, vignaud@xandmail.fr, marcin.slusarz@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070810085611.GA11639@elte.hu> Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:56:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: ... > this changes the picture completely and makes the IO-APIC/local-APIC hw > retrigger code/logic the main suspect. I think you right that it's quite > bogus to hw-retrigger level irqs, and that could be confusing the > IO-APIC (or the local APIC, or both). > > and i think i see why my first sw-resend patch didnt do the trick: > > > > - if (!desc->chip || !desc->chip->retrigger || > > > - !desc->chip->retrigger(irq)) { > > > + if (desc->handle_irq == handle_edge_irq) { > > > + if (desc->chip->retrigger) > > > + desc->chip->retrigger(irq); > > > + return; > > > + } > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > > we used the hw-resend method unconditionally, right? Right: unconditionally on a condition they are not edges... But, since not resending at all seems to work so good in testing, I thought, _SW_RESEND could be considered as an unnecessarily complicated alternative. Now, I'm a bit confused... Jarek P.