* Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeb...@intel.com> wrote:
> > Now this is just a small annoyance that should not really matter -
> > it would be nice to figure out the real reason for why the irqs
> > move back to CPU#0.
> >
> > In theory the same could happen to 'irqbalanced' as well, if it
> > calls shortly after an irq was registered - so this is not a bug
> > we want to ignore.
>
> Let me know if I can do something to help, the IRQ code is a bit of
> a steep learning curve, so the chances of me fixing it are small.
Well, as a starter, if you can reproduce it on a system (I cannot),
then try to stick a few printks in there to print out the affinity
mask as it gets changed plus dump_stack(), and see who changes it
back?
Chances are it's irqbalanced? If not then the stack dump will tell. It
shouldn't be too chatty.
(trace_printk() if you prefer traces.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
