Weird interrupt problem

Today this happened to me the second time: All of a sudden, the USB
mouse stopped working. At the same time this appeared in the syslog:

Aug  7 17:19:57 tibook kernel: Unhandled interrupt 1d, disabled 

Plugging the mouse to the other socket worked, but it wouldn't work
again in the original one. As you can see in the attached
/proc/interrupts, interrupt 29 (=1d) is unknown. Interestingly,
interrupt 28 seems to be for the USB socket which stopped working (I
think it was the same one when the first problem first occured, might be
coincidence though). Was it somehow rewarded for its 100'000th
occurence? ;) Seriously, is it possible that the number changed somehow?


This wouldn't be all that bad, if the whole system wasn't very sluggish
afterwards. When it occured the first time, I had CONFIG_TAU enabled in
the kernel, which Ben said might cause the sluggishness at least. But
now it's disabled.


This is on a TiBook III/667 running 2.4.18-ben0-lotsanicestuff if it
matters. The first occurence was with 2.4.19-presomething-ben0.


Has anyone experienced anything similar?


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast

D'oh, sorry for following up to myself...

On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 01:05, Michel Dänzer wrote:

This is on a TiBook III/667 running 2.4.18-ben0-lotsanicestuff if it
matters.

Make that 2.4.19-ben0-lotsanicestuff.


--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Hi,

Twice now I have seen something that may be related.  The whole system
becomes very sluggish with either one or both cpus consuming 99% of
capacity while receiving funny interrupt messages.

I literally had to shutdown the system which took forever (I had to keep
hitting <return> to allow the second cpu to have a chance at things).

This is with an almost stock ben 2.4.19-pre10 kernel compiled for SMP on a
Dual G4 1-gig machine.  I have never seen anything in the message logs
that provides a good hint at why this is happening.

Again it has only happended twice now but it is very annoying (the system
becomes so sluggish you almost think it has hung completely).

I have no idea if this is related but it may be.

Kevin

On August 7, 2002 07:05, Michel Dänzer wrote:

Today this happened to me the second time: All of a sudden, the USB
mouse stopped working. At the same time this appeared in the syslog:

Aug  7 17:19:57 tibook kernel: Unhandled interrupt 1d, disabled

Plugging the mouse to the other socket worked, but it wouldn't work
again in the original one. As you can see in the attached
/proc/interrupts, interrupt 29 (=1d) is unknown. Interestingly,
interrupt 28 seems to be for the USB socket which stopped working (I
think it was the same one when the first problem first occured, might be
coincidence though). Was it somehow rewarded for its 100'000th
occurence? ;) Seriously, is it possible that the number changed somehow?


This wouldn't be all that bad, if the whole system wasn't very sluggish
afterwards. When it occured the first time, I had CONFIG_TAU enabled in
the kernel, which Ben said might cause the sluggishness at least. But
now it's disabled.


This is on a TiBook III/667 running 2.4.18-ben0-lotsanicestuff if it
matters. The first occurence was with 2.4.19-presomething-ben0.


Has anyone experienced anything similar?

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 02:28, Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:

Twice now I have seen something that may be related.  The whole system
becomes very sluggish with either one or both cpus consuming 99% of
capacity while receiving funny interrupt messages.

I literally had to shutdown the system which took forever (I had to keep
hitting <return> to allow the second cpu to have a chance at things).

This is with an almost stock ben 2.4.19-pre10 kernel compiled for SMP on a
Dual G4 1-gig machine.  I have never seen anything in the message logs
that provides a good hint at why this is happening.

Again it has only happended twice now but it is very annoying (the system
becomes so sluggish you almost think it has hung completely).

I have no idea if this is related but it may be.

I'm not sure, as this really seems to be related to USB, the CPU isn't
hogged and while the system is very jerky, it still runs at about half
the normal speed. No problem shutting down.


--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Today this happened to me the second time: All of a sudden, the USB
mouse stopped working. At the same time this appeared in the syslog:

Aug  7 17:19:57 tibook kernel: Unhandled interrupt 1d, disabled

Plugging the mouse to the other socket worked, but it wouldn't work
again in the original one. As you can see in the attached
/proc/interrupts, interrupt 29 (=1d) is unknown. Interestingly,
interrupt 28 seems to be for the USB socket which stopped working (I
think it was the same one when the first problem first occured, might be
coincidence though). Was it somehow rewarded for its 100'000th
occurence? ;) Seriously, is it possible that the number changed somehow?


This wouldn't be all that bad, if the whole system wasn't very sluggish
afterwards. When it occured the first time, I had CONFIG_TAU enabled in
the kernel, which Ben said might cause the sluggishness at least. But
now it's disabled.


This is on a TiBook III/667 running 2.4.18-ben0-lotsanicestuff if it
matters. The first occurence was with 2.4.19-presomething-ben0.


Has anyone experienced anything similar?

Really weird. It looks like the openpic is going south. Seriously, looks
like a HW problem, that is the interrupt controller starts giving us
bogus interrupt numbers. Doesn't sound good at all :(

Ideally, when that happens, you could drop into macsbug and peek at
the vector/priority & destination registers for this interrupt source
and tell me what they say. (Hook into the code for the error message
which is in arch/ppc/kernel/irq.c, and call a function you'll write
in open_pic.c that will dump these (to access them, look at what
openpic_enable/disable IRQ does).

It may be some kind of race within the openpic driver when we keep
enabling/disabling the source in ack() and end(). I'm pretty sure
we don't really need them, oh well...

Ben.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

It may be some kind of race within the openpic driver when we keep
enabling/disabling the source in ack() and end(). I'm pretty sure
we don't really need them, oh well...

Yeah I pulled that out of the ppc64 tree and I havent found a problem
yet. Maybe there was some buggy ppc32 hardware that required this?

Anton

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 14:07, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

quoted

Today this happened to me the second time: All of a sudden, the USB
mouse stopped working. At the same time this appeared in the syslog:

Aug  7 17:19:57 tibook kernel: Unhandled interrupt 1d, disabled

Plugging the mouse to the other socket worked, but it wouldn't work
again in the original one. As you can see in the attached
/proc/interrupts, interrupt 29 (=1d) is unknown. Interestingly,
interrupt 28 seems to be for the USB socket which stopped working (I
think it was the same one when the first problem first occured, might be
coincidence though). Was it somehow rewarded for its 100'000th
occurence? ;) Seriously, is it possible that the number changed somehow?


This wouldn't be all that bad, if the whole system wasn't very sluggish
afterwards. When it occured the first time, I had CONFIG_TAU enabled in
the kernel, which Ben said might cause the sluggishness at least. But
now it's disabled.


This is on a TiBook III/667 running 2.4.18-ben0-lotsanicestuff if it
matters. The first occurence was with 2.4.19-presomething-ben0.


Has anyone experienced anything similar?

Really weird. It looks like the openpic is going south. Seriously, looks
like a HW problem, that is the interrupt controller starts giving us
bogus interrupt numbers. Doesn't sound good at all :(

Well, now the machine is off to Apple to repair PMU problems. Maybe this
was a kind of an early warning sign.


--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/