Re: [next-20170217] WARN @/arch/powerpc/include/asm/xics.h:124 .icp_hv_eoi+0x40/0x140

On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 14:04 -0800, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > HOWEVER. Looking at current upstream code I don't understand the error, > > the DEBUG_SHIRQ code is calling the driver's handler not the flow > > handler so it shouldn't be called handle_fasteoi_irq or am I missing > > something ? > >

Re: [next-20170217] WARN @/arch/powerpc/include/asm/xics.h:124 .icp_hv_eoi+0x40/0x140

On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 14:04 -0800, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > HOWEVER. Looking at current upstream code I don't understand the error, > > the DEBUG_SHIRQ code is calling the driver's handler not the flow > > handler so it shouldn't be called handle_fasteoi_irq or am I missing > > something ? > >

Re: [next-20170217] WARN @/arch/powerpc/include/asm/xics.h:124 .icp_hv_eoi+0x40/0x140

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 21:55 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > But when we're called for CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ get_irq() is not called, > > precisely because we're faking an interrupt. > > > > I'm not sure if there's a good way to fix it :/ > >

Re: [next-20170217] WARN @/arch/powerpc/include/asm/xics.h:124 .icp_hv_eoi+0x40/0x140

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 21:55 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > But when we're called for CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ get_irq() is not called, > > precisely because we're faking an interrupt. > > > > I'm not sure if there's a good way to fix it :/ > >

Re: [next-20170217] WARN @/arch/powerpc/include/asm/xics.h:124 .icp_hv_eoi+0x40/0x140

On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 21:55 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > But when we're called for CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ get_irq() is not called, > precisely because we're faking an interrupt. > > I'm not sure if there's a good way to fix it :/ In the irq_replay path we have code to adjust the CPPR stack. We

Re: [next-20170217] WARN @/arch/powerpc/include/asm/xics.h:124 .icp_hv_eoi+0x40/0x140

On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 21:55 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > But when we're called for CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ get_irq() is not called, > precisely because we're faking an interrupt. > > I'm not sure if there's a good way to fix it :/ In the irq_replay path we have code to adjust the CPPR stack. We

Re: [next-20170217] WARN @/arch/powerpc/include/asm/xics.h:124 .icp_hv_eoi+0x40/0x140

Sachin Sant writes: >>> While booting next-20170217 on a POWER6 box, I ran into following >>> warning. This is a full system lpar. Previous next tree was good. >>> I will try a bisect tomorrow. >> >> Do you have CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ=y ? >> > > Yes. CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ

Re: [next-20170217] WARN @/arch/powerpc/include/asm/xics.h:124 .icp_hv_eoi+0x40/0x140

Sachin Sant writes: >>> While booting next-20170217 on a POWER6 box, I ran into following >>> warning. This is a full system lpar. Previous next tree was good. >>> I will try a bisect tomorrow. >> >> Do you have CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ=y ? >> > > Yes. CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ is enabled. > > As suggested

Re: [next-20170217] WARN @/arch/powerpc/include/asm/xics.h:124 .icp_hv_eoi+0x40/0x140

>> While booting next-20170217 on a POWER6 box, I ran into following >> warning. This is a full system lpar. Previous next tree was good. >> I will try a bisect tomorrow. > > Do you have CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ=y ? > Yes. CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ is enabled. As suggested by you reverting following

Re: [next-20170217] WARN @/arch/powerpc/include/asm/xics.h:124 .icp_hv_eoi+0x40/0x140

>> While booting next-20170217 on a POWER6 box, I ran into following >> warning. This is a full system lpar. Previous next tree was good. >> I will try a bisect tomorrow. > > Do you have CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ=y ? > Yes. CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ is enabled. As suggested by you reverting following