Re: [Xen-users] Badness in softirq.c / no modules loaded / related tonetwork interface

[Andy Smith <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:16:47PM +0100, Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:09:38PM +0100, Ian Pratt wrote:
> > Can you repeat on 2.0-testing or unstable?
> 
> This is a production machine unfortunately.  Its possible we may be
> able to schedule some downtime, I'll ask our sysadmin.
> 
> > Does anyone see this that's using a NIC other than an e1000?
> 
> Only one of our machines does this and it has an e1000 chipset.

Since upgrading from 2.6.10 / xen 2.0.5 to 2.6.11 / xen 2.0-testing
25/05/05 I am also seeing the following in dom0 console output.

kernel: Badness in local_bh_enable at kernel/softirq.c:140
kernel:  [local_bh_enable+130/144] local_bh_enable+0x82/0x90
kernel:  [skb_checksum+317/704] skb_checksum+0x13d/0x2c0
kernel:  [udp_poll+154/352] udp_poll+0x9a/0x160
kernel:  [sock_poll+41/64] sock_poll+0x29/0x40
kernel:  [do_pollfd+149/160] do_pollfd+0x95/0xa0
kernel:  [do_poll+106/208] do_poll+0x6a/0xd0
kernel:  [sys_poll+353/576] sys_poll+0x161/0x240
kernel:  [sys_gettimeofday+60/144] sys_gettimeofday+0x3c/0x90
kernel:  [__pollwait+0/208] __pollwait+0x0/0xd0
kernel:  [syscall_call+7/11] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

e1000 compiled in, and this is a 1U rackmount with onboard nics so
changing nic is not really an option.  This did not happen with
2.6.10/2.0.5.

Any other info that would be useful?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users