[+to Dima, Vitaly, Hui; beginning of thread at https://lore.kernel.org/r/60ac8988-ace4-4cf0-8c44-028ca741c0a1@xxxxxxxxxx] On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 01:39:11PM +0200, Petr Valenta wrote: > Dne 20. 08. 24 v 23:30 Bjorn Helgaas napsal(a): > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:13:54PM +0200, Petr Valenta wrote: > > > Dne 20. 08. 24 v 20:09 Bjorn Helgaas napsal(a): > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 07:23:42AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > > > > On 19. 08. 24, 6:50, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > > > > > CC e1000e guys + Jesse (due to 75a3f93b5383) + Bjorn (due to b2c289415b2b) > ... > > I'm at a loss. You could try reverting the entire b2c289415b2b commit > > (patch for that is below). > > This patch didn't help, so I reverted it back. > > > If that doesn't help, I guess you could try reverting the other > > commits Jiri mentioned: > > > > 76a0a3f9cc2f e1000e: fix force smbus during suspend flow > > c93a6f62cb1b e1000e: Fix S0ix residency on corporate systems > > bfd546a552e1 e1000e: move force SMBUS near the end of enable_ulp function > > 6918107e2540 net: e1000e & ixgbe: Remove PCI_HEADER_TYPE_MFD duplicates > > 1eb2cded45b3 net: annotate writes on dev->mtu from ndo_change_mtu() > > b2c289415b2b e1000e: Remove redundant runtime resume for ethtool_ops > > 75a3f93b5383 net: intel: implement modern PM ops declarations > > > > If you do this, I would revert 76a0a3f9cc2f, test, then revert > > c93a6f62cb1b in addition, test, then revert bfd546a552e1 in addition, > > etc. > > I have created revert patches like this: > git format-patch --stdout -1 76a0a3f9cc2f | interdiff -q /dev/stdin \ > /dev/null > revert_76a0a3f9cc2f.patch > > I have applied revert_76a0a3f9cc2f.patch (rebuild and tested), then in > addition revert_c93a6f62cb1b.patch and after applying > revert_bfd546a552e1.patch irq storm didn't appear. > > I have tested it with 3 subsequent reboots and in all those cases it was ok. Thanks for all this testing. It sounds like reverting all three of 76a0a3f9cc2f, c93a6f62cb1b, and bfd546a552e1 fixed the IRQ storm, but I'm not clear on the results of other situations. It looks like c93a6f62cb1b could be reverted by itself because it's unrelated to 76a0a3f9cc2f and bfd546a552e1. I added the authors of all three in case they have any insights. Bjorn
