On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 08:51:04AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> [141229 07:53]: > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:33:26AM +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Yegor Yefremov > > > <yegorslists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 01:00:51PM +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > > > >>> U-Boot version: 2014.07 > > > >>> Kernel config is omap2plus with enabled USB > > > >>> > > > >>> # cat /proc/version > > > >>> Linux version 3.18.0 (user@user-VirtualBox) (gcc version 4.8.3 > > > >>> 20140320 (prerelease) (Sourcery CodeBench Lite 2014.05-29) ) #6 SMP > > > >>> Mon Dec 8 22:47:43 CET 2014 > > > >> > > > >> Wasn't GCC 4.8.x total crap for building ARM kernels ? IIRC it was even > > > >> blacklisted. Can you try with 4.9.x just to make sure ? > > > > > > > > Will do. > > > > > > Adding linux-omap. Beginning of this discussion: > > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/341427 > > > > > > Quick summary: starting with kernel 3.18 or commit > > > 55601c9f24670ba926ebdd4d712ac3b177232330 am335x (at least BBB and some > > > custom boards) stalls at high network load. Reproducible via nuttcp > > > within some minutes > > > > > > nuttcp -S (on BBB) > > > nuttcp -t -N 4 -T30m 192.168.1.235 (on host) > > > > > > As Felipe Balbi suggested, I tried both 4.8.3 and 4.9.2 toolchains, > > > but both show the same behavior. > > > > > > Linux version 3.18.0 (user@user-VirtualBox) (gcc version 4.8.3 > > > 20140320 (prerelease) (Sourcery CodeBench Lite 2014.05-29) ) #6 SMP > > > Mon Dec 8 22:47:43 CET 2014 > > > Linux version 3.18.1 (user@user-VirtualBox) (gcc version 4.9.2 > > > (Buildroot 2015.02-git-00582-g10b9761) ) #1 SMP Mon Dec 29 09:22:29 > > > CET 2014 > > > > > > Let me know, if you can reproduce this issue. > > > > finally managed to reproduce this, it took quite a bit of effort though. > > I'll see if I can gether more information about the problem. > > Maybe check if the irqnr is 127 (or the last reserved interrupt) > in irq-omap-intc.c. If so, also print out the previous interrupt. > It seems the intc uses the last reserved interrupt to signal a > spurious interrupt for the previous irqnr, so we should probably > add some handling for that. > > If the previous interrupt is a cpsw interrupt, then there's probably > something wrong with cpsw interrupt handling. Either a missing > read-back to flush posted write in the cpsw interrupt handler, > or the EOI registers are written at a wrong time. yeah, I'll go over it, but I first need to reproduce it again. Just rebooted to try again and after half an hour, couldn't reproduce it anymore. Interesting race to end the year :-) cheers -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
