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

From: Jarek Poplawski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:10:38 +0200

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 08:33:27AM +0200, Marcin Ślusarz wrote:
> 2007/8/9, Jarek Poplawski <[email-masked]>:
...
> > 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.