On 02.03.2017 01:04, Gabriel C wrote:
Does the patch below fix it?
I'll test you patch in a bit and let you know.
It seem to work.
But to be really sure I let the box running with this setup over night.
Also with 4.10.1 + your patch all seems fine..
The box is up 13 hours now and
On 02.03.2017 01:04, Gabriel C wrote:
Does the patch below fix it?
I'll test you patch in a bit and let you know.
It seem to work.
But to be really sure I let the box running with this setup over night.
Also with 4.10.1 + your patch all seems fine..
The box is up 13 hours now and
Does the patch below fix it?
I'll test you patch in a bit and let you know.
It seem to work.
But to be really sure I let the box running with this setup over night.
8<--
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
+++
Does the patch below fix it?
I'll test you patch in a bit and let you know.
It seem to work.
But to be really sure I let the box running with this setup over night.
8<--
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
+++
On 01.03.2017 23:38, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
On 01.03.2017 18:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
That got changed in commit 3111912971251 which got into Linus tree during
the 4.10 merge window. So it is in 4.10-rc8.
On 01.03.2017 23:38, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
On 01.03.2017 18:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
That got changed in commit 3111912971251 which got into Linus tree during
the 4.10 merge window. So it is in 4.10-rc8.
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
> On 01.03.2017 18:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
> > > That got changed in commit 3111912971251 which got into Linus tree during
> > > the 4.10 merge window. So it is in 4.10-rc8.
> > >
> > > Confused.
> >
> > I'm still
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
> On 01.03.2017 18:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
> > > That got changed in commit 3111912971251 which got into Linus tree during
> > > the 4.10 merge window. So it is in 4.10-rc8.
> > >
> > > Confused.
> >
> > I'm still
On 01.03.2017 18:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
That got changed in commit 3111912971251 which got into Linus tree during
the 4.10 merge window. So it is in 4.10-rc8.
Confused.
I'm still confused. Gabriel, can you please try to reproduce with 4.10
final?
On 01.03.2017 18:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
That got changed in commit 3111912971251 which got into Linus tree during
the 4.10 merge window. So it is in 4.10-rc8.
Confused.
I'm still confused. Gabriel, can you please try to reproduce with 4.10
final?
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
> That got changed in commit 3111912971251 which got into Linus tree during
> the 4.10 merge window. So it is in 4.10-rc8.
>
> Confused.
I'm still confused. Gabriel, can you please try to reproduce with 4.10
final?
Thanks,
tglx
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017, Gabriel C wrote:
> That got changed in commit 3111912971251 which got into Linus tree during
> the 4.10 merge window. So it is in 4.10-rc8.
>
> Confused.
I'm still confused. Gabriel, can you please try to reproduce with 4.10
final?
Thanks,
tglx
On 18.02.2017 00:44, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
My card seems to use the e1000e driver which is buit-in..
Anyway here an objdump -x :
http://ftp.frugalware.org/pub/other/people/crazy/kernel/t/objdump-x_e1000.ko.txt
Found
On 18.02.2017 00:44, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
My card seems to use the e1000e driver which is buit-in..
Anyway here an objdump -x :
http://ftp.frugalware.org/pub/other/people/crazy/kernel/t/objdump-x_e1000.ko.txt
Found disable_hardirq() but not
On 18.02.2017 00:25, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
On 17.02.2017 23:38, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
Hi all,
while poking at a different issue I found the following
On 18.02.2017 00:25, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
On 17.02.2017 23:38, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
Hi all,
while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
[85362.132770] BUG: sleeping
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
>
> My card seems to use the e1000e driver which is buit-in..
>
> Anyway here an objdump -x :
>
> http://ftp.frugalware.org/pub/other/people/crazy/kernel/t/objdump-x_e1000.ko.txt
>
Found disable_hardirq() but not
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
>
> My card seems to use the e1000e driver which is buit-in..
>
> Anyway here an objdump -x :
>
> http://ftp.frugalware.org/pub/other/people/crazy/kernel/t/objdump-x_e1000.ko.txt
>
Found disable_hardirq() but not disable_irq().
Are you sure the
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
>
>
> On 17.02.2017 23:38, Cong Wang wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
>>>
>>>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
>
>
> On 17.02.2017 23:38, Cong Wang wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
>>>
>>> [85362.132770] BUG: sleeping function called
On 18.02.2017 00:16, Gabriel C wrote:
On 17.02.2017 23:38, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
Hi all,
while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
[85362.132770] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid
On 18.02.2017 00:16, Gabriel C wrote:
On 17.02.2017 23:38, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
Hi all,
while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
[85362.132770] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
On 17.02.2017 23:38, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
Hi all,
while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
[85362.132770] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
kernel/irq/manage.c:110
On 17.02.2017 23:38, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
Hi all,
while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
[85362.132770] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
kernel/irq/manage.c:110
[85362.132771] in_atomic(): 1,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
>
> [85362.132770] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> kernel/irq/manage.c:110
> [85362.132771] in_atomic(): 1,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
>
> [85362.132770] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> kernel/irq/manage.c:110
> [85362.132771] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 1153,
Hi all,
while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
[85362.132770] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
kernel/irq/manage.c:110
[85362.132771] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 1153, name:
systemd-journal
[85362.132772] no locks held by
Hi all,
while poking at a different issue I found the following on my logs :
[85362.132770] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
kernel/irq/manage.c:110
[85362.132771] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 1153, name:
systemd-journal
[85362.132772] no locks held by
Eric Dumazet :
[...]
> I would prefer having a definitive advice from Thomas Gleixner and/or
> others if disable_irq() is forbidden from IRQ path.
>
> As I said, about all netpoll() methods in net drivers use disable_irq()
> so a lot of patches would be needed.
s/about
Eric Dumazet :
[...]
> I would prefer having a definitive advice from Thomas Gleixner and/or
> others if disable_irq() is forbidden from IRQ path.
>
> As I said, about all netpoll() methods in net drivers use disable_irq()
> so a lot of patches would be needed.
s/about all/many/
There has been
Hi Sabrina,
The idea when this first came up was to skip the sleeping part of
disable_irq():
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev=142314159626052
This fell off my todolist and I didn't send the conversion patches,
which would basically look like this:
Yes it works in the several machines that
Hi Sabrina,
The idea when this first came up was to skip the sleeping part of
disable_irq():
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev=142314159626052
This fell off my todolist and I didn't send the conversion patches,
which would basically look like this:
Yes it works in the several machines that
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2016-07-28, 07:43:55 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > I would prefer having a definitive advice from Thomas Gleixner and/or
> > others if disable_irq() is forbidden from IRQ path.
Yes it is. Before we added threaded interrupt handlers it was not an
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2016-07-28, 07:43:55 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > I would prefer having a definitive advice from Thomas Gleixner and/or
> > others if disable_irq() is forbidden from IRQ path.
Yes it is. Before we added threaded interrupt handlers it was not an
2016-07-28, 07:43:55 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 14:38 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:14 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > Could you try this ?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > >
2016-07-28, 07:43:55 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 14:38 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:14 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > Could you try this ?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > >
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:45:12 +0200, Thomas Gleixner said:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, nick wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > index f42129d..e1830af 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:45:12 +0200, Thomas Gleixner said:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, nick wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > index f42129d..e1830af 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, nick wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> index f42129d..e1830af 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> @@ -3797,7
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, nick wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> index f42129d..e1830af 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> @@ -3797,7
On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 14:38 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:14 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Could you try this ?
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > index
> >
On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 14:38 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:14 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Could you try this ?
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > index
> >
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:14 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Could you try this ?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> index
> f42129d09e2c23ba9fdb5cde890d50ecb7166a42..a53c41c4c4f7d1fe52f95a2cab8784a
> 938b3820b 100644
>
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:14 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Could you try this ?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> index
> f42129d09e2c23ba9fdb5cde890d50ecb7166a42..a53c41c4c4f7d1fe52f95a2cab8784a
> 938b3820b 100644
>
On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 23:01 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 06:28:33PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 23:32 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >> Hi Eric,
> >>
> >> It works!
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:14:52AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> >On Tue,
On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 23:01 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 06:28:33PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 23:32 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >> Hi Eric,
> >>
> >> It works!
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:14:52AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> >On Tue,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 06:28:33PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 23:32 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Hi Eric,
It works!
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:14:52AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:50 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> This BUG message
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 06:28:33PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 23:32 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Hi Eric,
It works!
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:14:52AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:50 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> This BUG message
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 23:32 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> It works!
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:14:52AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:50 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> This BUG message can be found in recent kernels as well as v4.4
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 23:32 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> It works!
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:14:52AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:50 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> This BUG message can be found in recent kernels as well as v4.4
Hi Eric,
It works!
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:14:52AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:50 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Greetings,
This BUG message can be found in recent kernels as well as v4.4 and
linux-stable. It happens when running
modprobe netconsole
Hi Eric,
It works!
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:14:52AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:50 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Greetings,
This BUG message can be found in recent kernels as well as v4.4 and
linux-stable. It happens when running
modprobe netconsole
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> @@ -3797,7 +3797,7 @@ static irqreturn_t e1000_intr(int irq, void *data)
> hw->get_link_status = 1;
> /* guard against
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c
> @@ -3797,7 +3797,7 @@ static irqreturn_t e1000_intr(int irq, void *data)
> hw->get_link_status = 1;
> /* guard against
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:50 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> This BUG message can be found in recent kernels as well as v4.4 and
> linux-stable. It happens when running
>
> modprobe netconsole netconsole=@/,$port@$server/
>
> [ 39.937534] 22 Jul 13:30:40 ntpdate[440]: step
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 11:50 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> This BUG message can be found in recent kernels as well as v4.4 and
> linux-stable. It happens when running
>
> modprobe netconsole netconsole=@/,$port@$server/
>
> [ 39.937534] 22 Jul 13:30:40 ntpdate[440]: step
Greetings,
This BUG message can be found in recent kernels as well as v4.4 and
linux-stable. It happens when running
modprobe netconsole netconsole=@/,$port@$server/
[ 39.937534] 22 Jul 13:30:40 ntpdate[440]: step time server 192.168.1.1
offset -673.833841 sec
[ 39.943285]
Greetings,
This BUG message can be found in recent kernels as well as v4.4 and
linux-stable. It happens when running
modprobe netconsole netconsole=@/,$port@$server/
[ 39.937534] 22 Jul 13:30:40 ntpdate[440]: step time server 192.168.1.1
offset -673.833841 sec
[ 39.943285]
58 matches
Mail list logo