Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

email freebsd-wireless with the wifi details. i know our iwm driver gets antenna configs wrong sometimes and that can cause issues. -a On 6 January 2017 at 11:07, Jonathan Anderson wrote: > On 6 Jan 2017, at 13:53, Pete Wright wrote: >> >> >> i've been having the same

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

On 6 Jan 2017, at 14:26, Matthew Macy wrote: Thanks. Pete already filed that as part of #108. With luck markj@ will have that fixed this weekend. -M Fantastic, I'll subscribe to that issue. Cheers, Jon -- jonathan.ander...@ieee.org ___

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

On 6 Jan 2017, at 14:06, Matthew Macy wrote: kernel cores tend to be large (all of wired memory after all) and unless I have exactly the same kernel as you with the same sources at the same changeset, not useful. A backtrace is a good place to start. kgdb /boot/kernel/kernel

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

On 6 Jan 2017, at 12:48, Pete Wright wrote: On 1/6/17 9:14 AM, Matthew Macy wrote: I just did the merge and it's using a relatively untested new KPI so regressions aren't too surprising I'm afraid. #96 is more or less content free in terms of providing useful information. Getting a core +

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

Thanks. Pete already filed that as part of #108. With luck markj@ will have that fixed this weekend. -M On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:24:00 -0800 Jonathan Anderson wrote > On 6 Jan 2017, at 14:06, Matthew Macy wrote: > > > kernel cores tend to

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

On 6 Jan 2017, at 13:53, Pete Wright wrote: i've been having the same problems with iwm too (failing to load firmware on boot). my trick has been to either boot into an old kernel where iwm was mostly usable. also i've commented out the line enabling wlan0 in my rc.conf then uncommented it

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

kernel cores tend to be large (all of wired memory after all) and unless I have exactly the same kernel as you with the same sources at the same changeset, not useful. A backtrace is a good place to start. > kgdb /boot/kernel/kernel /var/crash/vmcore.last % bt -M On Fri, 06 Jan 2017

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

On 1/6/17 10:44 AM, Jonathan Anderson wrote: On 6 Jan 2017, at 12:48, Pete Wright wrote: On 1/6/17 9:14 AM, Matthew Macy wrote: I just did the merge and it's using a relatively untested new KPI so regressions aren't too surprising I'm afraid. #96 is more or less content free in terms of

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

On 1/6/17 9:14 AM, Matthew Macy wrote: > > Please try the drm-next branch now. Up until very recently, the > > shrinkers responsible for culling ttm/gem allocations were never run. > > I've now implemented the shrinker, but it's driven from vm_lowmem, so > > you'll probably still see what

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

> > Please try the drm-next branch now. Up until very recently, the > > shrinkers responsible for culling ttm/gem allocations were never run. > > I've now implemented the shrinker, but it's driven from vm_lowmem, so > > you'll probably still see what looks like a leak until you hit low

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

On 5 Jan 2017, at 0:17, Matthew Macy wrote: On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 06:01:50 -0800 Jonathan Anderson wrote Hi all, I'm seeing some unexpected PQ_LAUNDRY behaviour on something fairly close to -CURRENT (drm-next-4.7 with an IFC on 26 Dec). Aside from the use of

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

On 2 Jan 2017, at 13:33, Mark Johnston wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 10:31:50AM -0330, Jonathan Anderson wrote: Hi all, I'm seeing some unexpected PQ_LAUNDRY behaviour on something fairly close to -CURRENT (drm-next-4.7 with an IFC on 26 Dec). Aside from the use of not-quite-CURRENT, it's

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 06:01:50 -0800 Jonathan Anderson wrote > Hi all, > > I'm seeing some unexpected PQ_LAUNDRY behaviour on something fairly close > to -CURRENT (drm-next-4.7 with an IFC on 26 Dec). Aside from the use of > not-quite-CURRENT, it's

Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 10:31:50AM -0330, Jonathan Anderson wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm seeing some unexpected PQ_LAUNDRY behaviour on something fairly close > to -CURRENT (drm-next-4.7 with an IFC on 26 Dec). Aside from the use of > not-quite-CURRENT, it's also very possible that I don't understand

PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

Hi all, I'm seeing some unexpected PQ_LAUNDRY behaviour on something fairly close to -CURRENT (drm-next-4.7 with an IFC on 26 Dec). Aside from the use of not-quite-CURRENT, it's also very possible that I don't understand how the laundry queue is supposed to work. Nonetheless, I thought I'd check