On Sunday, 24 June 2007 02:45, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:54:52 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at
On Sunday, 24 June 2007 02:28, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 01:54:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This patch breaks hibernation on my Turion 64 X2 - based testbox (HPC
> > nx6325).
> >
> > _cpu_down() just hangs as though there were a deadlock in there, 100% of the
On Sunday, 24 June 2007 02:45, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:54:52 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick
On Sunday, 24 June 2007 02:28, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 01:54:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This patch breaks hibernation on my Turion 64 X2 - based testbox (HPC
nx6325).
_cpu_down() just hangs as though there were a deadlock in there, 100% of the
time.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 06:45:05PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Hmm. It looks like Siddha sent the wrong version of the patch.
> The working tested version had an additional test to ensure
> the mask and unmask methods were implemented.
>
> i.e.
> + if
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:54:52 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> > >
>> > > This fixes the
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 01:54:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This patch breaks hibernation on my Turion 64 X2 - based testbox (HPC nx6325).
>
> _cpu_down() just hangs as though there were a deadlock in there, 100% of the
> time.
Does the patch at this URL work for you?
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:54:52 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > >
> > > This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
> >
> > Great! Andrew, please include
On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >
> > This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
>
> Great! Andrew, please include the appended patch in -mm.
>
>
> Subject: [patch] x86_64, irq: use mask/unmask and proper
On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
Great! Andrew, please include the appended patch in -mm.
Subject: [patch] x86_64, irq: use mask/unmask and proper locking
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:54:52 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
Great! Andrew, please include the appended
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 01:54:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This patch breaks hibernation on my Turion 64 X2 - based testbox (HPC nx6325).
_cpu_down() just hangs as though there were a deadlock in there, 100% of the
time.
Does the patch at this URL work for you?
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:54:52 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:08, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 06:45:05PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Hmm. It looks like Siddha sent the wrong version of the patch.
The working tested version had an additional test to ensure
the mask and unmask methods were implemented.
i.e.
+ if (irq_desc[irq].chip-mask)
+
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>
> This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
Great! Andrew, please include the appended patch in -mm.
Subject: [patch] x86_64, irq: use mask/unmask and proper locking in fixup_irqs
From: Suresh Siddha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Force irq
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:59:27PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> hmm.. Please try this instead. This is intended only for debug. Based on your
> test results, we can comeup with a more decent fix.
This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
--D
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:06:37PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:00:03AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > Anyhow, Darrick there is a general bug in this area, can you try this and
> > see if it helps?
>
> Er... that instantly locked up the system.
hmm.. Please try
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:00:03AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Anyhow, Darrick there is a general bug in this area, can you try this and
> see if it helps?
Er... that instantly locked up the system.
--D
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
"Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:54:45AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> "Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:54:45AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > [ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
> >> >
> >>
> >> And just to make sure, at this point,
"Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
>> >
>> > [ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
>> >
>>
>> And just to make sure, at this point, your MSI irq 4341 affinity
>> (/proc/irq/4341/smp_affinity) still points to '2'?
>
>
Darrick J. Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
call to set_affinity
[ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
ethernet on irq 4341 stops working
And just to make sure, at this point, your MSI irq 4341 affinity
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:54:45AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Darrick J. Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
call to set_affinity
[ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
ethernet on irq 4341 stops working
And just to
Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:54:45AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Darrick J. Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
call to set_affinity
[ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:00:03AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Anyhow, Darrick there is a general bug in this area, can you try this and
see if it helps?
Er... that instantly locked up the system.
--D
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:06:37PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:00:03AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Anyhow, Darrick there is a general bug in this area, can you try this and
see if it helps?
Er... that instantly locked up the system.
hmm.. Please try this
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:59:27PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
hmm.. Please try this instead. This is intended only for debug. Based on your
test results, we can comeup with a more decent fix.
This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
--D
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
This fixes the problem! Hurrah!
Great! Andrew, please include the appended patch in -mm.
Subject: [patch] x86_64, irq: use mask/unmask and proper locking in fixup_irqs
From: Suresh Siddha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Force irq
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >
> > [ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
> >
>
> And just to make sure, at this point, your MSI irq 4341 affinity
> (/proc/irq/4341/smp_affinity) still points to '2'?
Actually, it's 0xD. From the kernel's perspective the
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:38:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:57:26PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > As you have the failing system, you need to do more detective work and
> > help me out. Can you try this debug patch and send across the dmesg after
> > the
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:57:26PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> As you have the failing system, you need to do more detective work and
> help me out. Can you try this debug patch and send across the dmesg after the
> bug happens and also can you try different compiler to see if something
>
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:57:26PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
As you have the failing system, you need to do more detective work and
help me out. Can you try this debug patch and send across the dmesg after the
bug happens and also can you try different compiler to see if something
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:38:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:57:26PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
As you have the failing system, you need to do more detective work and
help me out. Can you try this debug patch and send across the dmesg after
the
bug
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:54:34PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
call to set_affinity
[ 256.298787] irq=4341 affinity=d
ethernet on irq 4341 stops working
And just to make sure, at this point, your MSI irq 4341 affinity
(/proc/irq/4341/smp_affinity) still points to '2'?
Actually,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:16:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:35:14PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > Weird. Then the bug can only happen if for some reason, "mask = map"
> > didn't happen in fixup_irqs(). Can you send us the disassembly of the
> >
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:16:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:35:14PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Weird. Then the bug can only happen if for some reason, mask = map
didn't happen in fixup_irqs(). Can you send us the disassembly of the
fixup_irqs()?
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:35:14PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Weird. Then the bug can only happen if for some reason, "mask = map"
> didn't happen in fixup_irqs(). Can you send us the disassembly of the
> fixup_irqs()?
Attached.
--D
(gdb) disassemble fixup_irqs
Dump of assembler code for
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:58:29AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:37:59PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 04:57:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can you
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:37:59PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 04:57:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >
> > > Can you send us your system's dmesg aswell as output of /proc/interrupts?
> >
> >
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:37:59PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 04:57:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Can you send us your system's dmesg aswell as output of /proc/interrupts?
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:58:29AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:37:59PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 04:57:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Can you send us your
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:35:14PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Weird. Then the bug can only happen if for some reason, mask = map
didn't happen in fixup_irqs(). Can you send us the disassembly of the
fixup_irqs()?
Attached.
--D
(gdb) disassemble fixup_irqs
Dump of assembler code for
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 04:57:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > Can you send us your system's dmesg aswell as output of /proc/interrupts?
>
> http://sweaglesw.net/~djwong/docs/dmesg
>
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Can you send us your system's dmesg aswell as output of /proc/interrupts?
http://sweaglesw.net/~djwong/docs/dmesg
http://sweaglesw.net/~djwong/docs/interrupts
--D
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 01:09:54PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:40:15AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > Does this problem happen only under certain stress or something simple, like
> >
> > boot the kernel
> > echo 2 > /proc/irq/114/smp_affinity
> > wait for irq
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:40:15AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Does this problem happen only under certain stress or something simple, like
>
> boot the kernel
> echo 2 > /proc/irq/114/smp_affinity
> wait for irq to hit the cpu1.
> echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
>
> will
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:33:01AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:13:42AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > I see. Your system should have 4 or 8 logical cpu's right. So you must be
> > using logical flat mode, right?
>
> I believe so. The system has two Xeon 5150s
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:13:42AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> I see. Your system should have 4 or 8 logical cpu's right. So you must be
> using logical flat mode, right?
I believe so. The system has two Xeon 5150s with an Intel 5000 chipset
of some sort.
> When this bug happens, what does
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:36:47AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:23:10AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > Darrick, I see a kernel bug in this area(which is already filled with bugs,
> > and I am looking into ways to fix them). Are you making sure that
> > between
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:23:10AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Darrick, I see a kernel bug in this area(which is already filled with bugs,
> and I am looking into ways to fix them). Are you making sure that
> between step-1 and step-2, that interrupts actually started arriving at cpu1?
>
>
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 05:44:27PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm seeing a driver hang with 2.6.22-rc3 while being slightly stupid
> about offlining CPUs. I suspect that this problem extends beyond a
> particular machine, as I've been able to replicate it with an IBM x3650
>
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 05:44:27PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
Hi there,
I'm seeing a driver hang with 2.6.22-rc3 while being slightly stupid
about offlining CPUs. I suspect that this problem extends beyond a
particular machine, as I've been able to replicate it with an IBM x3650
and an
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:23:10AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Darrick, I see a kernel bug in this area(which is already filled with bugs,
and I am looking into ways to fix them). Are you making sure that
between step-1 and step-2, that interrupts actually started arriving at cpu1?
i.e.,
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:36:47AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:23:10AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Darrick, I see a kernel bug in this area(which is already filled with bugs,
and I am looking into ways to fix them). Are you making sure that
between step-1
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:13:42AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
I see. Your system should have 4 or 8 logical cpu's right. So you must be
using logical flat mode, right?
I believe so. The system has two Xeon 5150s with an Intel 5000 chipset
of some sort.
When this bug happens, what does
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:33:01AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:13:42AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
I see. Your system should have 4 or 8 logical cpu's right. So you must be
using logical flat mode, right?
I believe so. The system has two Xeon 5150s with an
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:40:15AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Does this problem happen only under certain stress or something simple, like
boot the kernel
echo 2 /proc/irq/114/smp_affinity
wait for irq to hit the cpu1.
echo 0 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
will immmd trigger
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 01:09:54PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:40:15AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Does this problem happen only under certain stress or something simple, like
boot the kernel
echo 2 /proc/irq/114/smp_affinity
wait for irq to hit the
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Can you send us your system's dmesg aswell as output of /proc/interrupts?
http://sweaglesw.net/~djwong/docs/dmesg
http://sweaglesw.net/~djwong/docs/interrupts
--D
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 04:57:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:14:51PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Can you send us your system's dmesg aswell as output of /proc/interrupts?
http://sweaglesw.net/~djwong/docs/dmesg
>
> This is just getting confusing.
>
> Emmanuel Fust. Please play with /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity by
and and
> confirm that you can move your irqs. This will confirm it
is the decision
> part.
>
Ok, as planned, you're right ;-) , playing with
/proc/irq/*/smp_affinity let me move irqs.
This is just getting confusing.
Emmanuel Fust. Please play with /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity by
and and
confirm that you can move your irqs. This will confirm it
is the decision
part.
Ok, as planned, you're right ;-) , playing with
/proc/irq/*/smp_affinity let me move irqs.
Emmanuel.
---
"Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:18:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> I doubt it. The practical problem is that cpu_down does not
>> and by design can not call the irq balancing part properly
>> and I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that we
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:18:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I doubt it. The practical problem is that cpu_down does not
> and by design can not call the irq balancing part properly
> and I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that we don't migrate
> irq properly.
>
> So I'm guessing it
> As a side note, on my very old SMP machine, 2.6.20 correctly
> load-balance IRQs across CPU but 2.6.21 not. I know that
> in-kernel IRQ load balancer is marked as deprecated and
> somewhat broken, but with your report it make me think it
> could be a bug in the IRQ rerouting part in my case too
> There exists a similar scenario. Set the IRQ affinity to a
bunch of
> CPUs, watch /proc/interrupts to see which CPU is actually
servicing the
> interrupts, then offline that CPU. The kernel does not
reroute the IRQ
> to any of the other CPUs and the device also hangs.
>
> The furthest that
"Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm seeing a driver hang with 2.6.22-rc3 while being slightly stupid
> about offlining CPUs. I suspect that this problem extends beyond a
> particular machine, as I've been able to replicate it with an IBM x3650
> and an IBM x3755.
Darrick J. Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi there,
I'm seeing a driver hang with 2.6.22-rc3 while being slightly stupid
about offlining CPUs. I suspect that this problem extends beyond a
particular machine, as I've been able to replicate it with an IBM x3650
and an IBM x3755. This is
There exists a similar scenario. Set the IRQ affinity to a
bunch of
CPUs, watch /proc/interrupts to see which CPU is actually
servicing the
interrupts, then offline that CPU. The kernel does not
reroute the IRQ
to any of the other CPUs and the device also hangs.
The furthest that I've dug
As a side note, on my very old SMP machine, 2.6.20 correctly
load-balance IRQs across CPU but 2.6.21 not. I know that
in-kernel IRQ load balancer is marked as deprecated and
somewhat broken, but with your report it make me think it
could be a bug in the IRQ rerouting part in my case too and
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:18:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I doubt it. The practical problem is that cpu_down does not
and by design can not call the irq balancing part properly
and I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that we don't migrate
irq properly.
So I'm guessing it was
Darrick J. Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:18:32PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I doubt it. The practical problem is that cpu_down does not
and by design can not call the irq balancing part properly
and I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that we don't
Hi there,
I'm seeing a driver hang with 2.6.22-rc3 while being slightly stupid
about offlining CPUs. I suspect that this problem extends beyond a
particular machine, as I've been able to replicate it with an IBM x3650
and an IBM x3755. This is what I'm doing:
1) I tie an IRQ to a particular
Hi there,
I'm seeing a driver hang with 2.6.22-rc3 while being slightly stupid
about offlining CPUs. I suspect that this problem extends beyond a
particular machine, as I've been able to replicate it with an IBM x3650
and an IBM x3755. This is what I'm doing:
1) I tie an IRQ to a particular
74 matches
Mail list logo
