Re: 2.6.28-rc2 hates my e1000e
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Sat Nov 01 2008 - 13:17:02 EST
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Networking is fine in the absence of NFS. I retried things and
> stress-tested it in a few ways with no trouble. I think your last patch
> fixes the network card just fine.
>
> Then I tried NFS again, watching more closely this time around.
> Everything locks up. In fact, the soft lockup watchdog starts to
> scream:
Interesting. I wonder why it happens for NFS, but not apparently for all
your other modules.
It does look very much like a ftrace issue, though, not NFS or
network-related. Steven? Is this something that you are aware of already,
with what looks like a lockup in ftrace_record_ip()?
> So methinks I'll add Steven to the Cc on this one :) Looks like a
> different problem for sure.
Agreed. Looks unlikely to be related.
> > Oh, and getting the old (2.6.27) and new (2.6.28-rc2+patch)
> > /proc/iomem would be nice.
>
> For completeness, here they are.
Wow. Your BIOS really does screw up massively. The one reserved region
difference is:
Old kernel (with lots of resources just re-assigned elsewhere):
> e0000000-fed003ff : reserved
> fec00000-fec00fff : IOAPIC 0
> fed00000-fed003ff : HPET 0
New kernel:
> e0000000-fed003ff : reserved
> fe800000-fe8fffff : PCI Bus 0000:01
> fe9d9b00-fe9d9bff : 0000:00:1f.3
> fe9d9c00-fe9d9fff : 0000:00:1a.7
> fe9d9c00-fe9d9fff : ehci_hcd
> fe9da000-fe9dafff : 0000:00:03.3
> fe9db000-fe9dbfff : 0000:00:19.0
> fe9db000-fe9dbfff : e1000e
> fe9dc000-fe9dffff : 0000:00:1b.0
> fe9dc000-fe9dffff : ICH HD audio
> fe9e0000-fe9fffff : 0000:00:19.0
> fe9e0000-fe9fffff : e1000e
> fea00000-fea7ffff : 0000:00:02.0
> fea80000-feafffff : 0000:00:02.1
> feb00000-febfffff : 0000:00:02.0
> fec00000-fec00fff : IOAPIC 0
> fed00000-fed003ff : HPET 0
ie the BIOS had marked a _lot_ of PCI allocations that it did as being
reserved, and there was actually no partial overlap in your case. The old
kernel would end up re-assigning all the resources (except for the magic
non-PCI-BAR ones like the IOAPIC and the HPET) because of that BIOS
reservation.
I do think that the new layout looks better, and I also think that
"insert_resource_expand_to_fit()" did a much better and more logical job
than "reserve_region_with_split()" did. So it looks like an improvement. I
wonder who else with have breakage though - EVERY SINGLE TIME we do
resource allocation cleanups/fixes, some odd firmware inevtiably breaks.
It's really sad. I worry that the old-style reserved handling hid bus
where the firmware had assigned resources to insane locations (and then
the reserved area code ended up forcing us to re-assign them to better
ones). But my second patch at least -conceptually- makes sense, and
obviously fixes your case, so I'm inclined to just commit it.
And either of the above two resource listings look saner than the plain
-rc2 version (using reserve_region_with_split):
> e0000000-fe7fffff : reserved
> fe800000-fe8fffff : PCI Bus 0000:01
> fe800000-fe8fffff : reserved
> fe900000-fe9d9aff : reserved
> fe9d9b00-fe9d9bff : 0000:00:1f.3
> fe9d9b00-fe9d9bff : reserved
> fe9d9c00-fe9d9fff : 0000:00:1a.7
> fe9d9c00-fe9d9fff : reserved
> fe9da000-fe9dafff : 0000:00:03.3
> fe9da000-fe9dafff : reserved
> fe9db000-fe9dbfff : 0000:00:19.0
> fe9db000-fe9dbfff : reserved
> fe9dc000-fe9dffff : 0000:00:1b.0
> fe9dc000-fe9dffff : reserved
> fe9e0000-fe9fffff : 0000:00:19.0
> fe9e0000-fe9fffff : reserved
> fea00000-fea7ffff : 0000:00:02.0
> fea00000-fea7ffff : reserved
> fea80000-feafffff : 0000:00:02.1
> fea80000-feafffff : reserved
> feb00000-febfffff : 0000:00:02.0
> feb00000-febfffff : reserved
> fec00000-fed003ff : reserved
> fec00000-fec00fff : IOAPIC 0
> fed00000-fed003ff : HPET 0
.. which is just really messy, but is the same e0000000-fed003ff
"reserved" e820 entry just split and moved into each resource.
I hate firmware.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/