From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750700AbVJ2Icz (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Oct 2005 04:32:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750757AbVJ2Icz (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Oct 2005 04:32:55 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:26334 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750700AbVJ2Icy (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Oct 2005 04:32:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [Bug 5039] high cpu usage (softirq takes 50% all the time) From: Arjan van de Ven To: Andrew Morton Cc: bugme-daemon@kernel-bugs.osdl.org, morfic@gentoo.org, kraftb@kraftb.at, migo@abp.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <20051029010945.623a8dab.akpm@osdl.org> References: <200510290754.j9T7sqAg027452@fire-1.osdl.org> <20051029010945.623a8dab.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:32:34 +0200 Message-Id: <1130574755.2908.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.8 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 01:09 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > bugme-daemon@kernel-bugs.osdl.org wrote: > > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5039 > > > > Well this is a depressing saga. A bunch of people whose machines appear to > be spending 50% CPU time in softirq processing. Some find that `noapic' > fixes it and some dont. Some are on x86_64, some are on x86. > > I suspect we have multiple bugs here. It's quite a mess. > > Could the reporters please, via a reply-to-all to this email: > > a) test 2.6.14. > > b) summarise the current status of your bug (what CPU type, what are the > symptoms, any known workarounds, etc). > > c) Generate a kernel profile (see Documentation/basic_profiling.txt) d) get a /proc/interrupts to see if there's some screaming irq.. and if so which one