Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:23:29 -0400
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Dan Cojocar <dan.cojocar@gmail.com>
Cc:        Jung-uk Kim <jkim@niksun.com>
Subject:   Re: Interrupt storm
Message-ID:  <200504051423.29530.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <b37cb09705040509445e5bbf23@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <b37cb097050329102222136cd9@mail.gmail.com> <200504051030.42657.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <b37cb09705040509445e5bbf23@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 12:44 pm, Dan Cojocar wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2005 5:30 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 March 2005 01:35 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 29 March 2005 01:22 pm, Dan Cojocar wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > I noticed the following interrupt storm in my dmesg:
> > > >
> > > > Interrupt storm detected on "irq11: rl1"; throttling interrupt
> > > > source Interrupt storm detected on "irq5: rl0"; throttling
> > > > interrupt source
> > > >
> > > > Here is my vmstat -i:
> > > > interrupt                          total       rate
> > > > irq0: clk                         128600        199
> > > > irq1: atkbd0                        2499          3
> > > > irq4: sio0                             2          0
> > > > irq5: rl0                         128901        200
> > > > irq8: rtc                          82294        127
> > > > irq11: rl1                        128902        200
> > > > irq12: psm0                        16152         25
> > > > irq14: ata0                        12600         19
> > > > irq15: ata1                           71          0
> > > > Total                             500021        776
> > > >
> > > > and here is my dmesg:
> > > > http://cs.ubbcluj.ro/~dan/dmesg.txt
> > > >
> > > > I have options DEVICE_POLLING and options HZ=200, i have tested
> > > > with greater HZ values like 1000, and without DEVICE_POLLING  but i
> > > > have the same storm.
> > >
> > > Try this:
> > >
> > > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200503161154.04555.jkim
> >
> > He's not using an APIC so that won't make any difference.
>
>     If I use APIC, I will get "watchdog timeout" as i posted in an old 
email:
> >rl0: watchdog timeout
> >rl1: watchdog timeout
> >rl0: watchdog timeout
> >rl1: watchdog timeout
> >rl1: watchdog timeout
> >rl1: watchdog timeout
> >rl1: watchdog timeout
>
>    Thanks,
>              Dan

That's indicative of other interrupt routing problems.  This is with APIC + 
ACPI, yes? If you disable ACPI, does APIC work or is it not found?  Also, if 
you disable ACPI, does non-APIC work ok?

-- 
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200504051423.29530.jhb>