From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:18:53 +0000 Subject: Re: interrupt problem with multiple vnet devices Message-Id: <20090429.171853.16961916.davem@davemloft.net> List-Id: References: <200904292141.n3TLfmn16267@elf.torek.net> In-Reply-To: <200904292141.n3TLfmn16267@elf.torek.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org From: Chris Torek Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:06:57 -0600 > Yes, this one is in. I did (and still do) suspect a hypervisor > bug. I think in this case the problem is that this test is not > sufficent for the "two vnets on one vswitch" case, though, > because this results in the desc->status not having > IRQ_INPROGRESS set on the "other" vnet that gets a double > interrupt. You can know if it's this hypervisor bug by simply updating your hypervisor to the latest version available. > I'm also wondering now if it has something to do with the code we > added that attempts to redistribute interrupts, so that in the case > of a double interrupt, the second one goes to a different CPU > than the CPU already handling the first one. Although we > should still see IRQ_INPROGRESS then... If you're making local changes on that scale, it's irresponsible to make mention of them when reporting a bug you want this list to look at :-(