On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 09:57 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I wonder if the EOI is going missing because it's coming
> from the wrong CPU? Note no 'EOI broadcast' after the last line in the
> log I showed above; it isn't just that I trimmed it there.
I'm running on a host kernel without commit
On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 01:28 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> David!
>
> On Fri, Mar 03 2023 at 16:54, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 17:51 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [ 0.577173] ACPI: \_SB_.LNKC: Enabled at IRQ 11
> > > > [ 0.578149] The affinity mask
David!
On Fri, Mar 03 2023 at 16:54, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 17:51 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >
>> > [ 0.577173] ACPI: \_SB_.LNKC: Enabled at IRQ 11
>> > [ 0.578149] The affinity mask was 0-3
>> > [ 0.579081] The affinity mask is 0-3 and the handler is on 2
On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 17:51 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> David!
>
> On Fri, Mar 03 2023 at 15:16, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I added the 'xen_no_vector_callback' kernel parameter a while back
> > (commit b36b0fe96af) to ensure we could test that more for Linux
> > guests.
> >
> > Most of my
David!
On Fri, Mar 03 2023 at 15:16, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I added the 'xen_no_vector_callback' kernel parameter a while back
> (commit b36b0fe96af) to ensure we could test that more for Linux
> guests.
>
> Most of my testing at the time was done with just two CPUs, and I
> happened to just
I added the 'xen_no_vector_callback' kernel parameter a while back
(commit b36b0fe96af) to ensure we could test that more for Linux
guests.
Most of my testing at the time was done with just two CPUs, and I
happened to just test it with four. It fails, because the IRQ isn't
actually affine to
