On 2013-02-25 15:39, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> On 2013-02-25 13:27, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 02/25/2013 11:18 AM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-02-15 16:26, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> On 2013-02-15 16:15, Anders Blomdell wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a DX79SI that dies with "kernel BUG at
>>>>> arch/x86/kernel/ipipe.c:589!" when running Xenomai. This is not very
>>>>> surprising since when running the system with an ordinary kernel thera
>>>>> are a few 'do_IRQ: X.Y No irq handler for vector (irq -1)' each day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Question is if it would be possible to do something less fatal than
>>>>> 'BUG_ON(irq < 0);' in the code below:
>>>>
>>>> This remains a bug that has to be understood.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> int __ipipe_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct ipipe_percpu_data *p = __ipipe_this_cpu_ptr(&ipipe_percpu);
>>>>> int irq, vector = regs->orig_ax, flags = 0;
>>>>> struct pt_regs *tick_regs;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (likely(vector < 0)) {
>>>>> irq = __this_cpu_read(vector_irq[~vector]);
>>>>> BUG_ON(irq < 0);
>>>>> } else { /* Software-generated. */
>>>>> irq = vector;
>>>>> flags = IPIPE_IRQF_NOACK;
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Kernel 3.5.7 with latest I-pipe?
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> This is the second report of this kind,
>>>> see [1] for the discussion and suggestions. If you don't have KGDB and
>>>> that kind enabled, try Gilles' instrumentations.
>>> After a running xenomai five and a half day on a DX58SO motherboard, the
>>> system crashed, leaving a single 'do_IRQ: 2.166 No irq handler for
>>> vector (irq -1)' on our logserver.
>>>
>>> I'm planning to put in Gilles instrumentations and change the BUG_ON to
>>> a WARN_ON/WARN, but what should I return after that (my guess is a
>>> 'return 1', but waiting a week to be proved wrong would be a waste of
>>> time :-).
>>
>>
>> Returning 1 is incorrect:
>> - you should probably jump to the end of the __ipipe_handle_irq function
>> - if the irq is irq 7, meaning a spurious irq, Linux should handle it,
>> so, __ipipe_dispatch_irq should be called.
> OK, so you mean that I'm probably lokking at two different problems
> DX58SO: a spurious interrupt (irq==7) passes through __ipipe_handle_irq
> without triggering BUG_ON, but something else breaks.
> DX79SI: some (spurious?) interrupt results in irq < 0, triggering BUG_ON
>
> Would the following changes be what you have in mind:
>
> if (likely(vector < 0)) {
> irq = __this_cpu_read(vector_irq[~vector]);
> if (irq < 0) {
> WARN(irq < 0, "irq(%d) < 0", irq);
Again, that's only an instrumentation to help finding the bug. According
to my reading of the code, Linux should behave incorrectly over invalid
vector_irq entries as well.
Jan
> goto out:
> }
> } else { /* Software-generated. */
> irq = vector;
> flags = IPIPE_IRQF_NOACK;
> }
> ...
> out:
> return 1;
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Anders
>
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
_______________________________________________
Xenomai mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
