On 20-Sep-00 Siobhan Patricia Lynch wrote:
> John,
> I get these on an SMP kernel, which locks up the box, I can't even
> figure out where exactly its happening. Maybe I'm just missing something
> in my kernel config file? I assumed (from UPDATING) that no real change
> was
> needed to the
more info,
the N440BX has a symbios scsi card on board and an fxp card onboard.
I'm using relatively old scsi drives (4500 RPM seagates and HP drives)
I have softupdates on, and I'm now using COMPAT_OLDPCI for now, although I
only turned it back on after seeing that was the only real change I made
John,
I get these on an SMP kernel, which locks up the box, I can't even
figure out where exactly its happening. Maybe I'm just missing something
in my kernel config file? I assumed (from UPDATING) that no real change
was
needed to the SMP options?
The hardware is an Intel N440BX motherbo
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
>As for the micruptime()
>messages on boot, they only occur here on a UP kernel. On an SMP kernel I
>don't get them. Also, they always occur during mi_switch() when an interrupt
>thread is finishing and going back to sleep. The first such th
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 19-Sep-00 Bruce Evans wrote:
> > It really does go backwards. This is caused by the giant lock preventing
> > the clock interrupt task from running soon enough. The giant lock can
> > also prevent the clock interrupt task from running often enough e
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:40:43 +0400, "Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> With very latest kernel I got lots of
>
> microuptime() went backwards (1.3624050 -> 1.998840)
>
> messages just before
I've also seen them for the first time with today's kernel.
Interestingly, today's kernel also seems to att
On 19-Sep-00 Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
>
>> With very latest kernel I got lots of
>>
>> microuptime() went backwards (1.3624050 -> 1.998840)
>>
>> messages just before
>>
>> Mounting root from ufs:/dev/da0s1a
>
> It really does go backwards. This is
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:30:25PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Eva
> ns writes:
> >On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> >
> >> With very latest kernel I got lots of
> >>
> >> microuptime() went backwards (1.3624050 -> 1.998840)
> >>
> >> mes
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
>
> > microuptime() went backwards (1.3624050 -> 1.998840)
> It really does go backwards. This is caused by the giant lock preventing
> the clock interrupt task from running soon enough. The giant lock can
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Eva
ns writes:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
>
>> With very latest kernel I got lots of
>>
>> microuptime() went backwards (1.3624050 -> 1.998840)
>>
>> messages just before
>>
>> Mounting root from ufs:/dev/da0s1a
>
>It really does go back
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> With very latest kernel I got lots of
>
> microuptime() went backwards (1.3624050 -> 1.998840)
>
> messages just before
>
> Mounting root from ufs:/dev/da0s1a
It really does go backwards. This is caused by the giant lock preventing
the clock in
11 matches
Mail list logo
