From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: cpuidle and un-eoid interrupts at the local apic Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:05:43 +0100 Message-ID: <5208CF9702000078000EB1F2@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <51A908CA.7050604@citrix.com> <51F8CB15.1070608@digithi.de><51F8DD40.2090207@citrix.com> <51FC37A9.9090809@digithi.de><51FC418D.8020708@citrix.com><51FFBA8502000078000E9462@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <51FFBC08.6070804@citrix.com> <52055EC9.8030207@digithi.de> <5208B6DE02000078000EB08E@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5208AACF.7050901@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1V8p10-0001xb-Vs for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:06:19 +0000 In-Reply-To: <5208AACF.7050901@citrix.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper Cc: xen-devel , "Thimo E." , Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 12.08.13 at 11:28, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 12/08/13 09:20, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 09.08.13 at 23:27, "Thimo E." wrote: >>> (XEN) **Pending EOI error >>> (XEN) irq 29, vector 0x24 >>> (XEN) s[0] irq 29, vec 0x24, ready 0, ISR 00000001, TMR 00000000, IRR > 00000000 >>> (XEN) All LAPIC state: >>> (XEN) [vector] ISR TMR IRR >>> (XEN) [1f:00] 00000000 00000000 00000000 >>> (XEN) [3f:20] 00000010 76efa12e 00000000 >>> (XEN) [5f:40] 00000000 e6f0f2fc 00000000 >>> (XEN) [7f:60] 00000000 32d096ca 00000000 >>> (XEN) [9f:80] 00000000 78fcf87a 00000000 >>> (XEN) [bf:a0] 00000000 f9b9fe4e 00000000 >>> (XEN) [df:c0] 00000000 ffdfe7ab 00000000 >>> (XEN) [ff:e0] 00000000 00000000 00000000 >>> (XEN) Peoi stack trace records: >> Mind providing (a link to) the patch that was used here, so that >> one can make sense of the printed information (and perhaps >> also suggest adjustments to that debugging code)? Nothing I >> was able to find on the list fully matches the output above... > > Attached Thanks. Actually, the second case he sent has an interesting difference: (XEN) s[0] irq 29, vec 0x26, ready 0, ISR 00000001, TMR 00000000, IRR 00000001 i.e. we in fact have _three_ instance of the interrupt (two in-service, and one request). I don't see an explanation for this other than buggy hardware. Sadly we still don't know what device it is that is behaving that way (including the confirmation that it's a non- maskable MSI one). Jan