Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
(added Cc:s)
Justin, does it work if you apply the patch below instead of the revert?
hm, that patch wont build because the protect_asmlinkage macro is rather
limited - it cannot
Justin Madru wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
(added Cc:s)
Justin, does it work if you apply the patch below instead of
the revert?
hm, that patch wont build because the protect_asmlinkage macro is
rather
I ended up with corrupted ext3 (see sparc.jpg) and working now to restore it.
Up and running again. I managed to get some more info from yesterday crash from
syslog:
Jan 20 17:44:07 kernel: EXT3-fs error (device sda3): ext3_valid_block_bitmap:
Invalid block bitmap - block_group = 41, block =
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 00:56:26 John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 02:39:57PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:11:11PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
All p54usb devices need a explicit termination packet, in oder to finish
the pending transfer
Kevin Shanahan wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 19:47 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Note, the wakeup latency only tests realtime threads, since other threads
can have other issues for wakeup. I could change the wakeup tracer as
wakeup_rt, and make a new wakeup that tests
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 16:34 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Kevin Shanahan wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 19:47 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Kevin, can you retest with kvm at realtime priority?
...
--- hermes-old.wumi.org.au ping statistics ---
900 packets transmitted, 900 received, 0% packet loss,
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 19:47 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Note, the wakeup latency only tests realtime threads, since other threads
can have other issues for wakeup. I could change the wakeup tracer as
wakeup_rt, and make a new wakeup that tests all threads, but it may
be
Kevin Shanahan wrote:
--- hermes-old.wumi.org.au ping statistics ---
900 packets transmitted, 900 received, 0% packet loss, time 899326ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.093/0.157/3.611/0.117 ms
So, a _huge_ difference. But what does it mean?
It means, a scheduling problem. Can you run the
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
Kevin Shanahan wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 19:47 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Note, the wakeup latency only tests realtime threads, since other
threads
can have other issues for wakeup. I could change the
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
Kevin Shanahan wrote:
--- hermes-old.wumi.org.au ping statistics ---
900 packets transmitted, 900 received, 0% packet loss, time 899326ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.093/0.157/3.611/0.117 ms
So, a _huge_ difference. But what does it mean?
* Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
Kevin Shanahan wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 19:47 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Note, the wakeup latency only tests realtime threads, since other threads
can have other issues for wakeup. I could change the wakeup tracer as
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:45:43PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.27 and
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
Kevin Shanahan wrote:
--- hermes-old.wumi.org.au ping statistics ---
900 packets transmitted, 900 received, 0% packet loss, time 899326ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.093/0.157/3.611/0.117 ms
So, a _huge_ difference. But what does it
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Sorry, must have missed that. I think it's gonna be a bit chatty if
user happens to have Logitech++ device attached, however I think if
we complement it with the patch below I think it should work OK.
Dmitry, I don't see the effect of your patch. I.e., both the patch by
14 matches
Mail list logo
