Re: [patch (testing)] Re: 2.6.20->2.6.21 - networking dies after random time

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 08:33:27AM +0200, Marcin Ślusarz wrote:

2007/8/9, Jarek Poplawski [off-list ref]:

...

quoted

diff -Nurp 2.6.23-rc1-/kernel/irq/chip.c 2.6.23-rc1/kernel/irq/chip.c

--- 2.6.23-rc1-/kernel/irq/chip.c       2007-07-09 01:32:17.000000000 +0200
+++ 2.6.23-rc1/kernel/irq/chip.c        2007-08-08 20:49:07.000000000 +0200

@@ -389,12 +389,19 @@ handle_fasteoi_irq(unsigned int irq, str
        unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
        struct irqaction *action;
        irqreturn_t action_ret;
+       int edge = 0;

...

NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt? TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=351.
eth0: Resetting the 8390 t=4295229000...<6>NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0:
transmit timed out
eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt? TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=718.
eth0: Resetting the 8390 t=4295230000...<6>NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0:
transmit timed out
eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt? TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=874.
etc...

So, we still have to wait for the exact explanation...

Thanks very much Marcin!

I think, there is this one possible for your testing yet?:
Subject: [patch] genirq: temporary fix for level-triggered IRQ resend
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:00:37 +0200

If it's not a great problem it would be interesting to try this with
different CONFIG_HZ too e.g. you could start with 100 (I guess, you
tested very similar thing in 2.6.23-rc2 with 1000(?) already).

Jean-Baptiste: you can skip/break testing of this 'experimental'
patch, too.

Regards,
Jarek P.

2007/8/10, Jarek Poplawski [off-list ref]:

(..)
I think, there is this one possible for your testing yet?:
Subject: [patch] genirq: temporary fix for level-triggered IRQ resend
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:00:37 +0200

I think I already tested this patch, but this thread is sooo big and I
can't find my response...

If it's not a great problem it would be interesting to try this with
different CONFIG_HZ too e.g. you could start with 100 (I guess, you
tested very similar thing in 2.6.23-rc2 with 1000(?) already).

My all tests were done on 2.6.22.1

Marcin

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 12:43:43PM +0200, Marcin Ślusarz wrote:

2007/8/10, Jarek Poplawski [off-list ref]:

quoted

(..)
I think, there is this one possible for your testing yet?:
Subject: [patch] genirq: temporary fix for level-triggered IRQ resend
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:00:37 +0200

I think I already tested this patch, but this thread is sooo big and I
can't find my response...

I think it was very similar Ingo's patch, which after your testing
is in 2.6.23-rc2 now. I've moved return for level type irqs a little
later, and it works a new way only for "x86_64".

But, I think, now this patch is less important: if you find some time,
try mostly new Ingo's or Thomas' patches (latest possible versions).

quoted

If it's not a great problem it would be interesting to try this with
different CONFIG_HZ too e.g. you could start with 100 (I guess, you
tested very similar thing in 2.6.23-rc2 with 1000(?) already).

My all tests were done on 2.6.22.1

Fine! If it's not said otherwise this version should be appropriate for
most of these patches. But, please, send your current configs on next
posibility (dmesg, /proc/interrupts and .config).

Bye (till monday),
Jarek P.