Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Chris Wilson 
On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:23:53 -0400, "Luke-Jr"  wrote:
> On Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:41:45 AM Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:08:56 -0700, Ray Lee  wrote:
> > > [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael
> > > Wysocki to the message ]
> > > 
> > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr  wrote:
> > > > I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month
> > > > ago against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the
> > > > regression being addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some
> > > > guys on IRC suggested I
> > > > email, so here it is.
> > > 
> > > See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.
> > 
> > Which has nothing to do with Luke's bug. Considering the thousand things
> > that can go wrong during X starting, without a hint as to which it is nigh
> > on impossible to debug except by trial and error. If you set up
> > netconsole, does the kernel emit an OOPS with it's last dying breath?
> 
> Why assume it's a different bug? I would almost wonder if it might affect 
> all Sandy Bridge GPUs. In any case, I no longer have the original 
> motherboard (it was recalled, as I said in the first post), nor even the 
> revision of it (it had other issues that weren't being fixed). I *assume* I 
> will have the same problem with my new motherboard (Intel DQ67SW), but I 
> haven't verified that yet. I'll be sure to try a netconsole when I have to 
> reboot next and get a chance to try the most recent 2.6.38 and .39 kernels, 
> but at the moment it seems reasonable to address the problem bisected in the 
> bug, even if it turns out to be different.

The bisection is into an old DRI1 bug on 945GM. That DRI has inadequate
locking between release and IRQ and so is prone to such races as befell
Kirill should not surprise anyone. As neither UMS nor DRI supported SNB,
I can quite confidently state they are separate bugs.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Luke-Jr 
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:40:17 AM Chris Wilson wrote:
> The bisection is into an old DRI1 bug on 945GM. That DRI has inadequate
> locking between release and IRQ and so is prone to such races as befell
> Kirill should not surprise anyone. As neither UMS nor DRI supported SNB,
> I can quite confidently state they are separate bugs.

Unfortunately, I cannot help troubleshoot that bug any further, as I no longer 
have the affected motherboard. I was unable to reproduce it on my Intel 
DQ67SW.

However, I did encounter a new regression, which I have reported as:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35552
This one is related to Intel HD Audio, not Graphics.

Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Luke-Jr 
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:41:45 AM Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:08:56 -0700, Ray Lee  wrote:
> > [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael
> > Wysocki to the message ]
> > 
> > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr  wrote:
> > > I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month
> > > ago against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the
> > > regression being addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some
> > > guys on IRC suggested I
> > > email, so here it is.
> > 
> > See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.
> 
> Which has nothing to do with Luke's bug. Considering the thousand things
> that can go wrong during X starting, without a hint as to which it is nigh
> on impossible to debug except by trial and error. If you set up
> netconsole, does the kernel emit an OOPS with it's last dying breath?

Why assume it's a different bug? I would almost wonder if it might affect 
all Sandy Bridge GPUs. In any case, I no longer have the original 
motherboard (it was recalled, as I said in the first post), nor even the 
revision of it (it had other issues that weren't being fixed). I *assume* I 
will have the same problem with my new motherboard (Intel DQ67SW), but I 
haven't verified that yet. I'll be sure to try a netconsole when I have to 
reboot next and get a chance to try the most recent 2.6.38 and .39 kernels, 
but at the moment it seems reasonable to address the problem bisected in the 
bug, even if it turns out to be different.

Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Chris Wilson 
On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:08:56 -0700, Ray Lee  wrote:
> [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael Wysocki
> to the message ]
> 
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr  wrote:
> 
> > I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month ago
> > against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the regression being
> > addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some guys on IRC suggested
> > I
> > email, so here it is.
> >
> 
> See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.

Which has nothing to do with Luke's bug. Considering the thousand things
that can go wrong during X starting, without a hint as to which it is nigh
on impossible to debug except by trial and error. If you set up
netconsole, does the kernel emit an OOPS with it's last dying breath?
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Chris Wilson 
On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:08:56 -0700, Ray Lee ray...@madrabbit.org wrote:
 [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael Wysocki
 to the message ]
 
 On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
 
  I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month ago
  against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the regression being
  addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some guys on IRC suggested
  I
  email, so here it is.
 
 
 See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.

Which has nothing to do with Luke's bug. Considering the thousand things
that can go wrong during X starting, without a hint as to which it is nigh
on impossible to debug except by trial and error. If you set up
netconsole, does the kernel emit an OOPS with it's last dying breath?
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Chris Wilson 
On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:23:53 -0400, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
 On Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:41:45 AM Chris Wilson wrote:
  On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:08:56 -0700, Ray Lee ray...@madrabbit.org wrote:
   [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael
   Wysocki to the message ]
   
   On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month
ago against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the
regression being addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some
guys on IRC suggested I
email, so here it is.
   
   See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.
  
  Which has nothing to do with Luke's bug. Considering the thousand things
  that can go wrong during X starting, without a hint as to which it is nigh
  on impossible to debug except by trial and error. If you set up
  netconsole, does the kernel emit an OOPS with it's last dying breath?
 
 Why assume it's a different bug? I would almost wonder if it might affect 
 all Sandy Bridge GPUs. In any case, I no longer have the original 
 motherboard (it was recalled, as I said in the first post), nor even the 
 revision of it (it had other issues that weren't being fixed). I *assume* I 
 will have the same problem with my new motherboard (Intel DQ67SW), but I 
 haven't verified that yet. I'll be sure to try a netconsole when I have to 
 reboot next and get a chance to try the most recent 2.6.38 and .39 kernels, 
 but at the moment it seems reasonable to address the problem bisected in the 
 bug, even if it turns out to be different.

The bisection is into an old DRI1 bug on 945GM. That DRI has inadequate
locking between release and IRQ and so is prone to such races as befell
Kirill should not surprise anyone. As neither UMS nor DRI supported SNB,
I can quite confidently state they are separate bugs.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Luke-Jr 
I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month ago 
against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the regression being 
addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some guys on IRC suggested I 
email, so here it is.
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Ray Lee 
[ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael Wysocki
to the message ]

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:

 I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month ago
 against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the regression being
 addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some guys on IRC suggested
 I
 email, so here it is.


See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.

~r.
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Ray Lee 
2011/5/20 Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
 It is on the list of known regressions from 2.6.37, but we're not tracking
 them any more now that 2.6.39 is out.

Hopefully Chris is still tracking them, even if you aren't.

Chris? What other information can the affected person provide, or what
tests can he run to help close this out?
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Luke-Jr 
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:41:45 AM Chris Wilson wrote:
 On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:08:56 -0700, Ray Lee ray...@madrabbit.org wrote:
  [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael
  Wysocki to the message ]
  
  On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
   I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month
   ago against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the
   regression being addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some
   guys on IRC suggested I
   email, so here it is.
  
  See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.
 
 Which has nothing to do with Luke's bug. Considering the thousand things
 that can go wrong during X starting, without a hint as to which it is nigh
 on impossible to debug except by trial and error. If you set up
 netconsole, does the kernel emit an OOPS with it's last dying breath?

Why assume it's a different bug? I would almost wonder if it might affect 
all Sandy Bridge GPUs. In any case, I no longer have the original 
motherboard (it was recalled, as I said in the first post), nor even the 
revision of it (it had other issues that weren't being fixed). I *assume* I 
will have the same problem with my new motherboard (Intel DQ67SW), but I 
haven't verified that yet. I'll be sure to try a netconsole when I have to 
reboot next and get a chance to try the most recent 2.6.38 and .39 kernels, 
but at the moment it seems reasonable to address the problem bisected in the 
bug, even if it turns out to be different.
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-21 Thread Luke-Jr 
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:40:17 AM Chris Wilson wrote:
 The bisection is into an old DRI1 bug on 945GM. That DRI has inadequate
 locking between release and IRQ and so is prone to such races as befell
 Kirill should not surprise anyone. As neither UMS nor DRI supported SNB,
 I can quite confidently state they are separate bugs.

Unfortunately, I cannot help troubleshoot that bug any further, as I no longer 
have the affected motherboard. I was unable to reproduce it on my Intel 
DQ67SW.

However, I did encounter a new regression, which I have reported as:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35552
This one is related to Intel HD Audio, not Graphics.
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-20 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki 
On Friday, May 20, 2011, Ray Lee wrote:
> [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael Wysocki
> to the message ]

It is on the list of known regressions from 2.6.37, but we're not tracking
them any more now that 2.6.39 is out.

Thanks,
Rafael


> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr  wrote:
> 
> > I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month ago
> > against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the regression being
> > addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some guys on IRC suggested
> > I
> > email, so here it is.
> >
> 
> See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.
> 
> ~r.
>

Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-20 Thread Ray Lee 
2011/5/20 Rafael J. Wysocki 
> It is on the list of known regressions from 2.6.37, but we're not tracking
> them any more now that 2.6.39 is out.

Hopefully Chris is still tracking them, even if you aren't.

Chris? What other information can the affected person provide, or what
tests can he run to help close this out?

Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-20 Thread Luke-Jr 
I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month ago 
against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the regression being 
addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some guys on IRC suggested I 
email, so here it is.

Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-20 Thread Ray Lee 
[ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael Wysocki
to the message ]

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr  wrote:

> I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month ago
> against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the regression being
> addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some guys on IRC suggested
> I
> email, so here it is.
>

See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.

~r.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

Re: Major 2.6.38 regression ignored?

2011-05-20 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki 
On Friday, May 20, 2011, Ray Lee wrote:
 [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael Wysocki
 to the message ]

It is on the list of known regressions from 2.6.37, but we're not tracking
them any more now that 2.6.39 is out.

Thanks,
Rafael


 On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
 
  I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month ago
  against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the regression being
  addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some guys on IRC suggested
  I
  email, so here it is.
 
 
 See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.
 
 ~r.
 

___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel