From: "Steven Noonan" <steven@uplinklabs.net>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>,
"ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" <ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net>
Subject: ath9k: massive unexplained latency in 2.6.27 (rc5, rc6, probably others)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:23:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f488382f0809181123n55a4979eg1996bbc30fa47d54@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
I'm encountering a very odd issue which only seems to crop up while I
sleep at night. In the morning, I go back to my Linux machine and
there's a ridiculously bad latency I immediately notice in Firefox's
redraw which I cannot explain. glxgears shows the typical 5K FPS, so
it seems like graphics are normal, but there's something causing
horrendous redraw times for Firefox. If I exit X11, the problem then
extends to my virtual terminals. If I switch a VT, it takes about a
second to redraw the whole screen top-to-bottom[1]. I can also get the
same issue if I do page-up/page-down in less, or pretty much anything
that causes the screen to redraw.
I'm using 2.6.27-rc6-tip right now, but this problem occurs on
pristine rc5 and rc6 as well. uptime is only 7 hours, and this problem
seems to get progressively worse over time. Strangely enough,
unloading the 'ath9k' driver causes the latency to outright -vanish-
instantaneously (I only discovered this -after- I made the YouTube
video cited below, so the video doesn't demonstrate this tidbit,
unfortunately). I wish I knew what these symptoms are pointing to,
because this makes no sense to me at all. Is there some hardware
interrupt going bonkers? The only thing I can think of is that I've
got 'irqpoll' on the command line. I have it because I had to reload
the ath9k driver at one point, and this was the result (caused ath9k
to become a useless driver until I rebooted, which re-enabled IRQ 17):
[53997.493777] ath9k: driver unloaded
[54001.098532] ath9k: 0.1
[54001.098833] ath9k 0000:03:00.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 17 (level, low) -> IRQ 17
[54001.099013] ath9k 0000:03:00.0: setting latency timer to 64
[54001.233825] phy1: Selected rate control algorithm 'ath9k_rate_control'
[54001.236980] phy1: Atheros 5416: mem=0xffffc20000060000, irq=17
[54002.136218] irq 17: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
[54002.136229] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Tainted: P 2.6.27-rc6-00036-ga551b98 #2
[54002.136234]
[54002.136235] Call Trace:
[54002.136241] <IRQ> [<ffffffff80265231>] __report_bad_irq+0x3d/0x81
[54002.136258] [<ffffffff80265477>] note_interrupt+0x202/0x267
[54002.136265] [<ffffffff80265bfc>] handle_fasteoi_irq+0xba/0xe4
[54002.136273] [<ffffffff8020e7ff>] do_IRQ+0x115/0x191
[54002.136279] [<ffffffff8020bc01>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa
[54002.136283] <EOI> [<ffffffff802541bb>] ?
tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick+0x2c5/0x2d4
[54002.136296] [<ffffffff8020a69f>] ? cpu_idle+0x2d/0xed
[54002.136304] [<ffffffff8060d741>] ? rest_init+0x75/0x77
[54002.136309]
[54002.136312] handlers:
[54002.136315] [<ffffffffa0209016>] (ath_isr+0x0/0x160 [ath9k])
[54002.136340] Disabling IRQ #17
latencytop did not give me anything useful while the enormous latency
was showing up, except during one case where 'less' was taking forever
and a half to redraw:
Cause Maximum Percentage
down acquire_console_sem con_flush_chars write_cha1140.9 msec 70.0 %
Scheduler: waiting for cpu 79.6 msec 21.0 %
do_sys_poll sys_poll system_call_fastpath 4.8 msec 4.1 %
down acquire_console_sem vt_waitactive vt_ioctl tt 0.9 msec 4.8 %
down acquire_console_sem do_con_write con_write wr 0.8 msec 0.1 %
Process less (5550) Total: 1145.3 msec
down acquire_console_sem con_flush_chars write_cha1140.9 msec
99.6 %write system_call_fastpath
Scheduler: waiting for cpu 1.3 msec 0.3 %
down acquire_console_sem do_con_write con_write wr 0.8 msec
0.1 %ite sys_write system_call_fastpath
latencytop only showed the redraw delay once, couldn't pin Firefox or
VT switch latency on anything. 'top' also doesn't show anything taking
a ridiculous amount of CPU. I can't figure out what precisely the
explanation is for ath9k's horrendous slowdown of the system.
This problem isn't easily bisectable either, because the only way I
can reproduce this problem is by leaving Linux running with ath9k
loaded overnight, and then finding it running like a tortoise in the
morning. I also don't know what kernels this -does not- happen on,
because I just recently put Linux on this particular machine, and I've
only used 2.6.27-rc5 through rc6 and above.
- Steven
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GeCx1gZMpA -- took a quick video
of the problem in progress. be prepared to be absolutely horrified.
next reply other threads:[~2008-09-18 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-18 18:23 Steven Noonan [this message]
2008-09-18 18:34 ` [ath9k-devel] " Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-18 18:42 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-18 19:00 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-18 19:23 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-18 20:18 ` Justin Mattock
2008-09-18 20:25 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-18 20:44 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-18 21:31 ` Justin Mattock
2008-09-18 21:49 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-18 22:01 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-18 22:08 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-18 23:04 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-18 23:10 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-18 23:16 ` Johannes Berg
2008-09-19 2:52 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-19 3:01 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-19 7:29 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-19 8:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-19 8:22 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-19 8:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-27 1:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-09-27 19:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-27 19:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-09-19 8:45 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-19 8:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-19 8:22 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-19 14:28 ` Senthil Balasubramanian
2008-09-19 16:42 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-19 17:58 ` Senthil Balasubramanian
2008-09-19 18:23 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-19 23:31 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-19 23:53 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-20 0:01 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-20 1:13 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-20 1:15 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-20 3:29 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-20 3:40 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-20 20:56 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-20 15:21 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-20 20:57 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-20 20:58 ` Johannes Berg
2008-09-20 21:03 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-20 21:22 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-20 21:26 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-20 21:48 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-21 1:48 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-22 6:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-22 7:14 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-22 7:26 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-22 8:06 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-22 15:11 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-22 16:01 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-23 7:22 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-23 7:55 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-23 16:20 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-23 19:22 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-20 21:18 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-20 21:24 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-09-18 23:08 ` Steven Noonan
2008-09-18 23:12 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f488382f0809181123n55a4979eg1996bbc30fa47d54@mail.gmail.com \
--to=steven@uplinklabs.net \
--cc=ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lrodriguez@atheros.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®