"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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 table writes
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 with MSI-X
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 for this.
Well.
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 no for now, I have seen
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 asked him to
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 the appropriate
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 be
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.
I have
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 Fedora test
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 dug more
24 matches
Mail list logo
