On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:04:40AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Linas Vepstas writes: > > > Err .. it was cpu 0 that was spinlocked. Are interrupts not > > distributed? > > We have some bogosities in the xics code that I noticed a couple of > days ago. Basically we only set the xics to distribute interrupts to > all cpus if (a) the affinity mask is equal to CPU_MASK_ALL (which has > ones in every bit position from 0 to NR_CPUS-1) and (b) all present > cpus are online (cpu_online_map == cpu_present_map). Otherwise we > direct interrupts to the first cpu in the affinity map. So you can > easily have the affinity mask containing all the online cpus and still > not get distributed interrupts. > > So in your case it's quite possible that all interrupts were directed > to cpu 0.
Thanks, I'll give this a whirl if I don't get distracted by other tasks. A simple cat /proc/interrupts shows them evenly distributed on my "usual" box, and all glommed up on cpu 0 on the one thats giving me fits. Also, I noticed years ago that "BAD" was non-zero and large. Vowed to look into it someday ... --linas _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev