Christian,
Thank you for your time and patience in helping me to understand what is
going on. It is greatly appreciated.
B.
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:04, Christian Limpach wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:00:18PM -0400, B.G. Bruce wrote:
> > What I've actually found is that if is disable the disabling of the
> > interrupt in kernel/irq/spurious.c, everything works fine. I still get
> > the error messages (I didn't comment them out) about every
> > 50.000-100.000 packets but I don't drop a packet and everything works as
> > it should. Now obviously I don't want to keep the disabling irq
> > disabled, but I'm at a loss for how to fix this otherwise.
>
> I think I understand now what's happening:
> - since you have devices on IRQ18 in both dom0 and another domain,
> all IRQ18 interrupts get delivered to both (for loop in
> __do_IRQ_guest in xen/arch/x86/irq.c).
> - the ide driver in dom0 will only handle IRQs for the ide controller.
> - all e1000 interrupts will be counted as spurious/unhandled.
> - if there's hardly any ide interrupts, you can hit the case where
> of 100000 interrupts, 99900 were unhandled and this will cause the
> interrupt to get disabled.
>
> We seem to hit the case mentioned in () above __report_bad_irq. Not
> disabling the interrupt in that case is the correct thing to do, but
> the sharing does certainly have a significant performance impact.
>
> christian
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Home