"Williams, Mitch A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed, this is a subtle bug, and was a real hairball to track down.
> Even so, I'm surprised that nobody else has dug into this, since it
> should affect anybody running MSI-X. I originally thought I was seeing
> a hardware bug, which is why I du
Williams, Mitch A wrote:
>
> If Eric is seeing bug reports related to "no vector for IRQ" in the
> wild, then I have to change my stance and agree that this should be
> pushed to -stable. Every one of those messages indicates that we
> hit the race condition.
>
Your previous patch is in a Fedor
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>The bug report would be phrased as someone seeing "No irq for vector"
>on x86_64. Unless they are a skilled developer they are unlikely to
>trace it down to not flushing posted writes to a MSI bar during irq
>migration. It part it is a subtle hardware/software race.
>
>
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 01:21:03PM -0700, Williams, Mitch A wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps we should put this into 2.6.22 then backport it to
> >2.6.21.x once it
> >> seems safe to do so. If we decide to go this way, we'll
> >need to ask Mitch
> >> to remind us to do the backport at
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:47:47PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Did we end up deciding whether this is (needed*safe) enough for 2.6.21?
>
> I say no for now, I have seen no bug reports for any hardware that is
> not in a lab for this.
The bug report would b
Greg KH wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should put this into 2.6.22 then backport it to
>2.6.21.x once it
>> seems safe to do so. If we decide to go this way, we'll
>need to ask Mitch
>> to remind us to do the backport at the appropriate time,
>else we'll surely
>> forget.
>
>Yes, that's what I just a
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 01:00:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:49:56 -0700
> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Did we end up deciding whether this is (needed*safe) enough for 2.6.21?
> >
> > I say n
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:49:56 -0700
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Did we end up deciding whether this is (needed*safe) enough for 2.6.21?
>
> I say no for now, I have seen no bug reports for any hardware that is
> not in a lab f
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:47:47PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:04:02 -0600
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>
> > Mitch Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This patch fixes a kernel bug which is triggered when using the
> > > irqbalance daemon wit
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:04:02 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Mitch Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This patch fixes a kernel bug which is triggered when using the
> > irqbalance daemon with MSI-X hardware.
> >
> > Because both MSI-X interrupt messages and MSI-X tab
Mitch Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch fixes a kernel bug which is triggered when using the
> irqbalance daemon with MSI-X hardware.
>
> Because both MSI-X interrupt messages and MSI-X table writes are posted,
> it's possible for them to cross while in-flight. This results in
> i
This patch fixes a kernel bug which is triggered when using the
irqbalance daemon with MSI-X hardware.
Because both MSI-X interrupt messages and MSI-X table writes are posted,
it's possible for them to cross while in-flight. This results in
interrupts being received long after the kernel thinks t
12 matches
Mail list logo
