[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#585556: More ata_piix spurious IRQs



jeanseb reported this problem with a PATA PIIX controller:

> [    1.324685] irq 5: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
> [    1.324730] Pid: 194, comm: scsi_eh_0 Not tainted 2.6.32-5-amd64 #1
> [    1.324732] Call Trace:
> [    1.324734]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff810952cd>] ? __report_bad_irq+0x30/0x7d
> [    1.324745]  [<ffffffff8109541f>] ? note_interrupt+0x105/0x16e
> [    1.324749]  [<ffffffff81095b26>] ? handle_level_irq+0x80/0xc3
> [    1.324753]  [<ffffffff81013957>] ? handle_irq+0x17/0x1d
> [    1.324756]  [<ffffffff81012fb1>] ? do_IRQ+0x57/0xb6
> [    1.324759]  [<ffffffff810114d3>] ? ret_from_intr+0x0/0x11
> [    1.324762]  [<ffffffff81014fa3>] ? mask_and_ack_8259A+0x0/0xca
> [    1.324767]  [<ffffffff81053967>] ? __do_softirq+0x6e/0x19f
> [    1.324770]  [<ffffffff81011cac>] ? call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
> [    1.324773]  [<ffffffff81013903>] ? do_softirq+0x3f/0x7c
> [    1.324776]  [<ffffffff81053845>] ? irq_exit+0x36/0x76
> [    1.324779]  [<ffffffff81012ffa>] ? do_IRQ+0xa0/0xb6
> [    1.324782]  [<ffffffff810114d3>] ? ret_from_intr+0x0/0x11
> [    1.324784]  <EOI>  [<ffffffff812fa7f5>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x8/0xe
> [    1.324798]  [<ffffffffa006bb64>] ? ata_exec_internal_sg+0x239/0x45b [libata]
> [    1.324802]  [<ffffffff8105a549>] ? del_timer_sync+0xc/0x16
> [    1.324807]  [<ffffffff811946c9>] ? delay_tsc+0x30/0x73
> [    1.324813]  [<ffffffffa006be09>] ? ata_exec_internal+0x83/0x92 [libata]
> [    1.324820]  [<ffffffffa007732c>] ? ata_sff_check_status+0x10/0x13 [libata]
> [    1.324827]  [<ffffffffa006c0d2>] ? ata_do_dev_read_id+0x21/0x23 [libata]
> [    1.324833]  [<ffffffffa006c1c8>] ? ata_dev_read_id+0xf4/0x3c2 [libata]
> [    1.324839]  [<ffffffffa007783c>] ? ata_sff_postreset+0x0/0x73 [libata]
> [    1.324846]  [<ffffffffa0074e1d>] ? ata_eh_schedule_probe+0xb3/0xe0 [libata]
> [    1.324852]  [<ffffffffa0075520>] ? ata_eh_recover+0x6d6/0xc2a [libata]
> [    1.324856]  [<ffffffff8103fe62>] ? update_curr+0xa6/0x147
> [    1.324862]  [<ffffffffa007783c>] ? ata_sff_postreset+0x0/0x73 [libata]
> [    1.324868]  [<ffffffffa007921c>] ? ata_sff_softreset+0x0/0x130 [libata]
> [    1.324873]  [<ffffffffa00d3578>] ? piix_pata_prereset+0x0/0x51 [ata_piix]
> [    1.324879]  [<ffffffffa007921c>] ? ata_sff_softreset+0x0/0x130 [libata]
> [    1.324885]  [<ffffffffa007783c>] ? ata_sff_postreset+0x0/0x73 [libata]
> [    1.324890]  [<ffffffffa007921c>] ? ata_sff_softreset+0x0/0x130 [libata]
> [    1.324894]  [<ffffffffa00d3578>] ? piix_pata_prereset+0x0/0x51 [ata_piix]
> [    1.324901]  [<ffffffffa0075bfc>] ? ata_do_eh+0x3b/0x82 [libata]
> [    1.324907]  [<ffffffffa007652b>] ? ata_scsi_error+0x342/0x67a [libata]
> [    1.324911]  [<ffffffff81047f57>] ? finish_task_switch+0x3a/0xa7
> [    1.324919]  [<ffffffffa00049dc>] ? scsi_error_handler+0x0/0x5b5 [scsi_mod]
> [    1.324925]  [<ffffffffa0004aea>] ? scsi_error_handler+0x10e/0x5b5 [scsi_mod]
> [    1.324931]  [<ffffffffa00049dc>] ? scsi_error_handler+0x0/0x5b5 [scsi_mod]
> [    1.324934]  [<ffffffff8106482d>] ? kthread+0x79/0x81
> [    1.324937]  [<ffffffff81011baa>] ? child_rip+0xa/0x20
> [    1.324940]  [<ffffffff810647b4>] ? kthread+0x0/0x81
> [    1.324943]  [<ffffffff81011ba0>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20
> [    1.324944] handlers:
> [    1.324977] [<ffffffffa00d384e>] (piix_interrupt+0x0/0x192 [ata_piix])
> [    1.325076] Disabling IRQ #5
> [    1.347126] ata1.00: ATAPI: DVD-RW IDE1108, VER B018, max UDMA/66
> [    1.347150] ata1.00: limited to UDMA/33 due to 40-wire cable

(more details at <http://bugs.debian.org/585556>).

This is in Debian kernel version 2.6.32-15 which is based on stable
version 2.6.32.14 but has your backported spurious IRQ handling patch
taken from SLE11 (References: bnc#445872, bnc#589449).  Any idea what's
going wrong here?  Is there a piece missing from that fix?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: