Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:34:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16334 Subject : reiserfs locking (v2) Submitter : Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com Date : 2010-07-02 9:34 (7 days old) Message-ID : 20100702093451.ga3...@swordfish.minsk.epam.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127806306303590w=2 Frederic? Al? I assume this is some late fallout from the BKL removal ages ago.. It's the old filldir-vs-mmap crud, but normally it should be impossible to trigger because the inode for a directory should never be mmap'able, so we should never have the same i_mutex lock used for both mmap and for filldir protection. We saw some of that oddity long ago, I wonder if it's lockdep being confused about some inodes. I think it has been there from the beginning. At least it was there before the reiserfs bkl removal in .32. Indeed the readdir - unmap/release inversion problem can not happen. But Al said that can happen between write and release. (Although I don't see where write takes the inode mutex). He also highlighted the fact that reiserfs refcounting based on i_count was totally broken. He has a fix the whole in the vfs tree, in the for-next branch on commit 6c2bdaf089a3876226893fab00dd83596c465ad2 Fix reiserfs_file_release() No more uses of the i_mutex on release after that, nor i_count, but a private openers refcount and a tailpack mutex per reiserfs inode. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
Hi Rafael, On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: [...] Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16169 Subject : Complain from preemptive debug Submitter : Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@googlemail.com Date: 2010-05-31 10:10 (39 days old) Message-ID : aanlktiltnaaziizkinysxfkntkrmpqk6xjjuujjhj...@mail.gmail.com References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/31/77 Handled-By : Dmitry Monakhov dmonak...@openvz.org Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com Patch : http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg01631.html https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/106555/ This bug is fixed Upstream [1]: commit 8c215bd3890c347dfb6a2db4779755f8b9c298a9 sched: Cure nr_iowait_cpu() users - Sedat - [1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=8c215bd3890c347dfb6a2db4779755f8b9c298a9 -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:34:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16284 Subject : Hitting WARN_ON in hw_breakpoint code Submitter : Paul Mackerras pau...@samba.org Date : 2010-06-23 12:57 (16 days old) Message-ID : 20100623125740.ga3...@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127729789113432w=2 This has I have a fix, will post it very soon. in the thread from Frederic, but I'm not seeing anything else. Frederic? Right. In fact it wasn't a regression. The per task breakpoint reservation design was broken from the beginning and this warning has revealed the problem. This only touched perf, and it did since perf support breakpoints. Fortunately ptrace wasn't concerned by this problem, even not by side effects of this. The fix is invasive as it's a rewrite of a (little) part of the breakpoint reservation. And since the symptom is only a warning and also breakpoints never released from the constraint table (just a counter, no memory leak), the fix is headed for 2.6.36. It is ready in tip:/perf/core: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=commitdiff;h=45a73372efe4a63f44aa2e1125d4a777c2fdc8d8 I think this ticket can be safely closed. Thanks. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 09:34:25 pm Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
Unresolved regressions
--
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16353
Subject : 2.6.35 regression
Submitter : Zeev Tarantov zeev.taran...@gmail.com
Date: 2010-07-05 13:04 (4 days old)
Message-ID : loom.20100705t144459-...@post.gmane.org
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127836002702522w=2
This is a gcc-4.5 issue. Whether it's also something that we should
change in the kernel is unclear, but at least as of now, the rule is
that you cannot compile the kernel with gcc-4.5. No idea whether the
compiler is just entirely broken, or whether it's just that it
triggers something iffy by being overly clever.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16346
Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git8 - include/linux/fdtable.h:88 invoked
rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Submitter : Miles Lane
miles.l...@gmail.com
Date: 2010-07-04 22:04 (5 days old)
Message-ID :
aanlktinof0k28rk4rmr66aubxcrl2rfa5zearj1lq...@mail.gmail.com
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127828107815930w=2
I'm not entirely sure if these RCU proving things should count as
regressions.
Sure, the option to enable RCU proving is new, but the things it
reports about generally are not new - and they are usually not even
bugs in the sense that they necessarily cause any real problems.
That particular one is in the single-thread optimizated case for
fget_light, ie
if (likely((atomic_read(files-count) == 1))) {
file = fcheck_files(files, fd);
where I think it should be entirely safe in all ways without any
locking. So I think it's a false positive too.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16334
Subject : reiserfs locking (v2)
Submitter : Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com
Date: 2010-07-02 9:34 (7 days old)
Message-ID : 20100702093451.ga3...@swordfish.minsk.epam.com
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127806306303590w=2
Frederic? Al? I assume this is some late fallout from the BKL removal
ages ago.. It's the old filldir-vs-mmap crud, but normally it should
be impossible to trigger because the inode for a directory should
never be mmap'able, so we should never have the same i_mutex lock used
for both mmap and for filldir protection.
We saw some of that oddity long ago, I wonder if it's lockdep being
confused about some inodes.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16333
Subject : iwl3945: HARDWARE GONE??
Submitter : Priit Laes pl...@plaes.org
Date: 2010-07-02 16:02 (7 days old)
Message-ID : 1278086575.2889.8.ca...@chi
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127808659705983w=2
This either got fixed, or will be practically impossible to debug. The
reporter ends up being unable to reproduce the issue.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16332
Subject : Kernel crashes in tty code (tty_open)
Submitter : wer...@guyane.yi.org
Date: 2010-07-02 3:34 (7 days old)
Message-ID : 1278041650.12...@guyane.yi.org
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127804167511930w=2
This seems to be due to CONFIG_MRST (Moorestown).
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16330
Subject : Dynamic Debug broken on 2.6.35-rc3?
Submitter : Thomas Renninger tr...@suse.de
Date: 2010-07-01 15:44 (8 days old)
Message-ID : 201007011744.19564.tr...@suse.de
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127799907218877w=2
There's a suggested patch in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127862524404291w=2
but no reply to it yet.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16329
Subject : 2.6.35-rc3: Load average climbing to 3+ with no
apparent reason: CPU 98% idle, with hardly no I/O Submitter :
Török Edwin edwinto...@gmail.com
Date: 2010-07-01 7:40 (8 days old)
Message-ID : 20100701104022.40441...@debian
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127797005030536w=2
This seems to be partly a confusion about what load average is. It's
not a CPU load, it's a system load average, and disk-wait processes
count towards it. He has some problem with his CD-ROM, and it sounds
like it might be hardware on the verge of going bad.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16324
Subject : Oops while running fs_racer test on a POWER6 box
against latest git Submitter : divya dipra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Date: 2010-06-30 11:34 (9 days old)
Message-ID :
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16175 Subject : 2.6.35-rc1 system oom, many processes killed but memory not free Submitter : andrew hendry andrew.hen...@gmail.com Date: 2010-06-05 0:46 (34 days old) Message-ID : aanlktim7ciw-yfugzuahzcqlvxkgt9cwolcvblgdc...@mail.gmail.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127569877714937w=2 Can be put down to bad ramdisk settings actual memory, its probably not a regression. I think it can be closed for now, i'll do some testing and see if ramdisk should complain before letting such configuration go through. On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.34, for which there are no fixes in the mainline known to the tracking team. If any of them have been fixed already, please let us know. If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.34, please let us know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know if any of the entries below are invalid. Each entry from the list will be sent additionally in an automatic reply to this message with CCs to the people involved in reporting and handling the issue. Listed regressions statistics: Date Total Pending Unresolved 2010-07-09 79 45 37 2010-06-21 46 37 26 2010-06-09 15 13 10 Unresolved regressions -- Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16353 Subject : 2.6.35 regression Submitter : Zeev Tarantov zeev.taran...@gmail.com Date : 2010-07-05 13:04 (4 days old) Message-ID : loom.20100705t144459-...@post.gmane.org References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127836002702522w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16346 Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git8 - include/linux/fdtable.h:88 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Submitter : Miles Lane miles.l...@gmail.com Date : 2010-07-04 22:04 (5 days old) Message-ID : aanlktinof0k28rk4rmr66aubxcrl2rfa5zearj1lq...@mail.gmail.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127828107815930w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16337 Subject : general protection fault: [#1] SMP Submitter : Justin P. Mattock justinmatt...@gmail.com Date : 2010-07-03 22:59 (6 days old) Message-ID : 4c2fc0e3.6050...@gmail.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127819798215589w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16334 Subject : reiserfs locking (v2) Submitter : Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com Date : 2010-07-02 9:34 (7 days old) Message-ID : 20100702093451.ga3...@swordfish.minsk.epam.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127806306303590w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16333 Subject : iwl3945: HARDWARE GONE?? Submitter : Priit Laes pl...@plaes.org Date : 2010-07-02 16:02 (7 days old) Message-ID : 1278086575.2889.8.ca...@chi References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127808659705983w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16332 Subject : Kernel crashes in tty code (tty_open) Submitter : wer...@guyane.yi.org Date : 2010-07-02 3:34 (7 days old) Message-ID : 1278041650.12...@guyane.yi.org References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127804167511930w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16330 Subject : Dynamic Debug broken on 2.6.35-rc3? Submitter : Thomas Renninger tr...@suse.de Date : 2010-07-01 15:44 (8 days old) Message-ID : 201007011744.19564.tr...@suse.de References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127799907218877w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16329 Subject : 2.6.35-rc3: Load average climbing to 3+ with no apparent reason: CPU 98% idle, with hardly no I/O Submitter : Török Edwin edwinto...@gmail.com Date : 2010-07-01 7:40 (8 days old) Message-ID : 20100701104022.40441...@debian References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127797005030536w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16324 Subject : Oops while running fs_racer test on a POWER6 box against latest git Submitter : divya dipra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com Date : 2010-06-30 11:34 (9 days old) Message-ID : 4c2b28f3.7000...@linux.vnet.ibm.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127789697303061w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16323 Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git4 - kernel/sched.c:616
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
* Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Bug-Entry ? ? ? : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16346
Subject ? ? ? ? : 2.6.35-rc3-git8 - include/linux/fdtable.h:88 invoked
rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
Submitter ? ? ? : Miles Lane miles.l...@gmail.com
Date ? ? ? ? ? ?: 2010-07-04 22:04 (5 days old)
Message-ID ? ? ?:
aanlktinof0k28rk4rmr66aubxcrl2rfa5zearj1lq...@mail.gmail.com
References ? ? ?: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127828107815930w=2
I'm not entirely sure if these RCU proving things should count as
regressions.
Generally not - and we've delayed at least one more complex (cgroups) fix to
v2.6.36 because the patch itself was riskier than the warning.
Still most of the warning fixes turned out to be simple, so we merged the
very-low-risk ones and right now we seem to be on top of them.
But in general the default rule is that we delay these fixes to v2.6.36.
Sure, the option to enable RCU proving is new, but the things it reports
about generally are not new - and they are usually not even bugs in the
sense that they necessarily cause any real problems.
That particular one is in the single-thread optimizated case for fget_light,
ie
if (likely((atomic_read(files-count) == 1))) {
file = fcheck_files(files, fd);
where I think it should be entirely safe in all ways without any locking. So
I think it's a false positive too.
Yeah, it's a bit like with lockdep (and it's a bit like with compiler warning
fixes): we had to punch through a large stack of false positives that
accumulated in the past 10 years.
( Because real bugs eventually get fixed, while false positives always just
accumulate. So almost by definition we always start with a very assymetric
collection of warnings and a large stack of false positives. )
Having said that, it appears we got most of the false positives and are
beginning to be in a more representative equilibrium now. If v2.6.35 isnt
going to be warning-free then v2.6.36 certainly will be and new warnings will
have a much higher likelyhood of being real (and new) bugs (not just
accumulated false-positives).
Ingo
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
--
___
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
[Bug 15469] [Intel Graphics HD] Kernel panic on boot with certain BIOS options
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15469 --- Comment #26 from Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org 2010-07-09 07:18:50 --- Our newer chips run at higher resolution, so we need more space for the compressed framebuffer. bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15469 --- Comment #25 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.ar...@mailcity.com 2010-07-09 05:26:52 --- I decided not to add this paragraph to my e-mail, so I'm expressing myself here: --- It seems like the only difference from the older patch is 32 vs 16, so could you please explain in laymen terms how this patch works and why did you change 16MB to 32MB. --- My only grief right now is `free` output (I have 4GB of RAM): $ free total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 3748132 3281523419980 0 32760 160052 -/+ buffers/cache: 1353403612792 Swap:0 0 0 $ uname -a Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.34.1-ic #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Jul 6 02:36:45 YEKST 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
[Bug 14596] radeon DRI driver produces garbled console with KMS enabled on Thinkpad T42
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14596 --- Comment #10 from Paul Martin p...@debian.org 2010-07-09 14:25:41 --- This problem doesn't exist in current kernels (2.3.34 and later). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:34:25 -0700 Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote: Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16307 Subject : i915 in kernel 2.6.35-rc3, high number of wakeups Submitter : Enrico Bandiello en...@postal.uv.es Date : 2010-06-26 16:57 (13 days old) Message-ID : 4c26317a.5070...@postal.uv.es References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127757403404259w=2 I don't think anybody noticed this one. Jesse? Oh I hadn't seen that... Enrico, can you bisect this issue? It could be some spurious hotplug events or possibly a stuck vblank interrupt... Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16265 Subject : Why is kslowd accumulating so much CPU time? Submitter : Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu Date : 2010-06-09 18:36 (30 days old) First-Bad-Commit: http://git.kernel.org/linus/fbf81762e385d3d45acad057b654d56972acf58c Message-ID : e1omq88-0002a1...@closure.thunk.org References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127610857819033w=4 Dave, Jesse? I haven't looked at the switchable graphics stuff, hopefully Dave has an idea here. Fixed by commit f4985dc714d7. Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16228 Subject : BUG/boot failure on Dell Precision T3500 (pci/ahci_stop_engine) Submitter : Brian Bloniarz phun...@hotmail.com Date : 2010-06-16 17:57 (23 days old) Handled-By : Bjorn Helgaas bjorn.helg...@hp.com This has a butt-ugly suggested patch that certainly won't be applied. I saw the thread, but lost sight of it. Jesse, did that end up with some resolution? I'll follow up with Yinghai, we were pretty clear about what we wanted from that patch. Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16179 Subject : 2.6.35-rc2 completely hosed on intel gfx? Submitter : Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at Date : 2010-06-06 11:55 (33 days old) Message-ID : 20100606115534.ga9...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127582534931581w=2 Hmm. That one is the vt.c bug coupled with another problem, which in turn got opened as a separate bugzilla entry: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16252 which in turn then got closed. I dunno. Yeah, this is weird. Norbert, do you still see this? Have you tried to bisect it? -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
[Bug 14596] radeon DRI driver produces garbled console with KMS enabled on Thinkpad T42
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14596 --- Comment #11 from Egor Y. Egorov egorov_e...@bk.ru 2010-07-09 17:45:24 --- Similar problem on 2.6.34 (gentoo- and zen-kernel). To my PC connected monitor (DVI-0) and TV (S-video). Monitor display is ok. TV display fine with radeon.modeset-0 With radeon.modeset=1 screen has horizontal line (like http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26915), but patch http://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=33809action=edit dont fix it. Sorry, my English is bad. Some information about my system: EGOROV eegorov # lspci | grep VGA 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV570 [Radeon X1950 Pro] (rev 9a) EGOROV eegorov # zgrep -i radeon\|kms /proc/config.gz CONFIG_DRM_KMS_HELPER=y CONFIG_DRM_RADEON=y CONFIG_DRM_RADEON_KMS=y # CONFIG_FB_RADEON is not set EGOROV eegorov # dmesg | grep drm [drm] Initialized drm 1.1.0 20060810 [drm] radeon defaulting to kernel modesetting. [drm] radeon kernel modesetting enabled. [drm] initializing kernel modesetting (RV570 0x1002:0x7280). [drm] register mmio base: 0xFBEE [drm] register mmio size: 65536 [drm] GPU reset succeed (RBBM_STATUS=0x1140) [drm] Possible LM64 thermal controller at 0x4c [drm] 1 Power State(s) [drm] State 0 Default (default) [drm] 16 PCIE Lanes [drm] 1 Clock Mode(s) [drm] 0 engine/memory: 60/70 [drm] radeon: power management initialized [drm] Generation 2 PCI interface, using max accessible memory [drm] radeon: using MSI. [drm] radeon: irq initialized. [drm] Detected VRAM RAM=256M, BAR=256M [drm] RAM width 256bits DDR [drm] radeon: 256M of VRAM memory ready [drm] radeon: 512M of GTT memory ready. [drm] GART: num cpu pages 131072, num gpu pages 131072 [drm] radeon: 3 quad pipes, 1 z pipes initialized. [drm] PCIE GART of 512M enabled (table at 0x0004). [drm] radeon: cp idle (0x1C03) [drm] Loading R500 Microcode [drm] radeon: ring at 0x1000 [drm] ring test succeeded in 3 usecs [drm] radeon: ib pool ready. [drm] ib test succeeded in 0 usecs [drm] Default TV standard: PAL [drm] Default TV standard: PAL [drm] Default TV standard: PAL [drm] Radeon Display Connectors [drm] Connector 0: [drm] DVI-I [drm] HPD2 [drm] DDC: 0x7e40 0x7e40 0x7e44 0x7e44 0x7e48 0x7e48 0x7e4c 0x7e4c [drm] Encoders: [drm] CRT1: INTERNAL_KLDSCP_DAC1 [drm] DFP3: INTERNAL_LVTM1 [drm] Connector 1: [drm] S-video [drm] Encoders: [drm] TV1: INTERNAL_KLDSCP_DAC2 [drm] Connector 2: [drm] DVI-I [drm] HPD1 [drm] DDC: 0x7e50 0x7e50 0x7e54 0x7e54 0x7e58 0x7e58 0x7e5c 0x7e5c [drm] Encoders: [drm] CRT2: INTERNAL_KLDSCP_DAC2 [drm] DFP1: INTERNAL_KLDSCP_TMDS1 [drm] fb mappable at 0xD00C [drm] vram apper at 0xD000 [drm] size 5242880 [drm] fb depth is 24 [drm]pitch is 5120 fbcon: radeondrmfb (fb0) is primary device fb0: radeondrmfb frame buffer device [drm] Initialized radeon 2.3.0 20080528 for :01:00.0 on minor 0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Friday, July 09, 2010, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:34:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16284 Subject : Hitting WARN_ON in hw_breakpoint code Submitter : Paul Mackerras pau...@samba.org Date: 2010-06-23 12:57 (16 days old) Message-ID : 20100623125740.ga3...@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=127729789113432w=2 This has I have a fix, will post it very soon. in the thread from Frederic, but I'm not seeing anything else. Frederic? Right. In fact it wasn't a regression. The per task breakpoint reservation design was broken from the beginning and this warning has revealed the problem. This only touched perf, and it did since perf support breakpoints. Fortunately ptrace wasn't concerned by this problem, even not by side effects of this. The fix is invasive as it's a rewrite of a (little) part of the breakpoint reservation. And since the symptom is only a warning and also breakpoints never released from the constraint table (just a counter, no memory leak), the fix is headed for 2.6.36. It is ready in tip:/perf/core: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=commitdiff;h=45a73372efe4a63f44aa2e1125d4a777c2fdc8d8 I think this ticket can be safely closed. OK, closing. Rafael -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
