Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-26 Thread Jason Harmening
I can confirm this patch works. HPET is now chosen over LAPIC as the eventtimer source, and the system works smoothly without disabling C2 or mwait. On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:12 AM, Jason Harmening <jason.harmen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Konstantin Belouso

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-25 Thread Jason Harmening
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 06:28:08PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:18:15AM -0700, Jason Harmening wrote: > > > I think you are probably right. Hackin

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-02 Thread Jason Harmening
On 11/02/16 00:55, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:29:13PM -0700, Jason Harmening wrote: >> repro code is at http://pastebin.com/B68N4AFY if anyone's interested. >> >> On 11/01/16 13:58, Jason Harmening wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>>

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-02 Thread Jason Harmening
On 11/01/16 22:49, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Jason Harmening > <jason.harmen...@gmail.com <mailto:jason.harmen...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On 11/01/16 20:45, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:36 PM, J

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-01 Thread Jason Harmening
On 11/01/16 20:45, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Jason Harmening > <jason.harmen...@gmail.com <mailto:jason.harmen...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Sorry, that should be ~*30ms* to get 30fps, though the variance is still > up to 500ms for me

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-01 Thread Jason Harmening
Sorry, that should be ~*30ms* to get 30fps, though the variance is still up to 500ms for me either way. On 11/01/16 14:29, Jason Harmening wrote: > repro code is at http://pastebin.com/B68N4AFY if anyone's interested. > > On 11/01/16 13:58, Jason Harmening wrote: >> Hi everyone, &

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-01 Thread Jason Harmening
repro code is at http://pastebin.com/B68N4AFY if anyone's interested. On 11/01/16 13:58, Jason Harmening wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I recently upgraded my main amd64 server from 10.3-stable (r302011) to > 11.0-stable (r308099). It went smoothly except for one big issue: > certa

huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-01 Thread Jason Harmening
Hi everyone, I recently upgraded my main amd64 server from 10.3-stable (r302011) to 11.0-stable (r308099). It went smoothly except for one big issue: certain applications (but not the system as a whole) respond very sluggishly, and video playback of any kind is extremely choppy. The system is

RESOLVED: Fatal trap 30 w/ latest 8.0-BETA2/amd64

2009-08-23 Thread Jason Harmening
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Jason Harmeningjason.harmen...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry for the partial dump--I don't (yet) have a swap partition, so I can't do postmortem: Machine is nehalem (4 cores + HT): FreeBSD riviera.austin.rr.com 8.0-BETA2 FreeBSD 8.0-BETA2 #1: Thu Aug 20 09:06:25

Fatal trap 30 w/ latest 8.0-BETA2/amd64

2009-08-20 Thread Jason Harmening
Sorry for the partial dump--I don't (yet) have a swap partition, so I can't do postmortem: Machine is nehalem (4 cores + HT): FreeBSD riviera.austin.rr.com 8.0-BETA2 FreeBSD 8.0-BETA2 #1: Thu Aug 20 09:06:25 CDT 2009 ja...@riviera.austin.rr.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/CUSTOM amd64 current process

kern/94669

2007-03-26 Thread Jason Harmening
Any update on kern/94669? Thanks, Jason ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [6.1-PRERELEASE/amd64] Kernel panic during heavy UFS traffic

2006-04-01 Thread Jason Harmening
On Saturday 18 March 2006 19:39, you wrote: On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 07:29:25PM -0600, Jason Harmening wrote: I finally managed to reproduce the mount panic on the console: CORONA% mount /dev/acd0 /home/jason/dvdram g_vfs_done():acd0[READ(offset=114688, length=16384)]error = 5 panic

Re: [6.1-PRERELEASE/amd64] Kernel panic during heavy UFS traffic

2006-03-18 Thread Jason Harmening
was done, no dump was actually generated. Is there something I'm missing? On Thursday 16 March 2006 13:54, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 12:45:07PM -0600, Jason Harmening wrote: Last night I ran into a series of kernel panics that seemed to be related to heavy UFS traffic. I ran

[6.1-PRERELEASE/amd64] Kernel panic during heavy UFS traffic

2006-03-16 Thread Jason Harmening
be one of the UFS deadlock issues that's already under investigation for 6.1-RELEASE. Thanks, Jason Harmening ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL

Re: [FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE] Incorrect geometry for VIA RAID0 array

2005-12-09 Thread Jason Harmening
doesn't have this bug. On 12/8/05, greg byshenk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On freebsd-stable, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Harmening) wrote: Here's the dmesg output from the installer: ad4: 70911MB WDC WD740GD-00FLA1 27.08D27 at ata2-master SATA150 ad6: 70911MB WDC WD740GD-00FLC0 33.08F33

[FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE] Incorrect geometry for VIA RAID0 array

2005-12-07 Thread Jason Harmening
recognized as 74G, rather than the true 148G. I've double-checked all my BIOS settings, and nothing seems out of order. Please help! Thanks, Jason Harmening ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable

Re: [FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE] Incorrect geometry for VIA RAID0 array

2005-12-07 Thread Jason Harmening
using ad6 at ata3-master On 12/7/05, Jason Harmening [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to install FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE on a RAID0 array attached to the VIA 8237 controller on my Asus A8V Deluxe motherboard. The array consists of two 74G drives. The installer recognizes the array as ar0

atapicam + MO drive weirdness in 6.0

2005-09-05 Thread Jason Harmening
, and the problem is still present. It's not a showstopper for me by any means, but both this problem and the removal of the old manual atacontrol syntax seem to be unfortunate regressions in the new ATA subsystem. Any help or further explanation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jason