On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
On 03-Apr-01 Bruce Evans wrote:
There are many other possibilities:
...
- don't attempt to save the FPU state reentrantly, since this doesn't work
with preemptive context switchiing unless interrupt handlers also save the
state reentrantly,
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
On 31-Mar-01 Bruce Evans wrote:
[about i586-optimized copying and bzeroing]
- we start using the FPU on a CPU with a free FPU (we used to free the
FPU in some cases; now we only use optimizations in bcopy/bzero if
the FPU was free to begin
On 03-Apr-01 Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
On 31-Mar-01 Bruce Evans wrote:
[about i586-optimized copying and bzeroing]
- we start using the FPU on a CPU with a free FPU (we used to free the
FPU in some cases; now we only use optimizations in bcopy/bzero
How about this:
* a per-process fp-in-use flag
* a per-cpu fp-save-block ID (incrementing serial number)
When a context switch from process A to process B occurs:
if (process-A-using-FP) {
increment ID
save FP state for process A and ID
:* Kernel bcopy operation in case where no process switch occurs
: (i.e. current process was using the FP and while we went into
: kernel mode, we have not yet saved the FP state anywhere).
:
: if (process-A-using-FP) {
: push FP state for process A on stack
:
-On [20010331 05:30], John Baldwin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It looks like it is just broken in the SMP case.
Note: I got a i586_bzero_oops on an UP box.
It was invoked through the random_process and the random_kthread.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai .oUo.
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
-On [20010331 05:30], John Baldwin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It looks like it is just broken in the SMP case.
Note: I got a i586_bzero_oops on an UP box.
It was invoked through the random_process and the random_kthread.
This means that
On 31-Mar-01 Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
On 30-Mar-01 David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 07:45:43AM +0200, Mark Murray wrote:
I thought the 586 FP stuff was disabled?
Nope. Depending on how current you are, it was either left broken.
I
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Leif Neland wrote:
CPU1 stopping CPUs: 0x0001... Stopped.
Stopped at i586_bzero_oops+0x1: jmp i586_bzero_oops
I get panics on that instructions too on my old 60MHz P5.
I've got a core dump, will tell more when I can interpret it...
Mark's
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 07:45:43AM +0200, Mark Murray wrote:
I thought the 586 FP stuff was disabled?
Nope. Depending on how current you are, it was either left broken.
I commited BDE's fix to exeception.s that fixed things for K6-2 users.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On 30-Mar-01 David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 07:45:43AM +0200, Mark Murray wrote:
I thought the 586 FP stuff was disabled?
Nope. Depending on how current you are, it was either left broken.
I commited BDE's fix to exeception.s that fixed things for K6-2 users.
It looks like
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
On 30-Mar-01 David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 07:45:43AM +0200, Mark Murray wrote:
I thought the 586 FP stuff was disabled?
Nope. Depending on how current you are, it was either left broken.
I commited BDE's fix to exeception.s
Hi
I have an SMP kernel with I586 and I686 support. If I boot it
on a 686 it works. On a 586 it craps out with
CPU1 stopping CPUs: 0x0001... Stopped.
Stopped at i586_bzero_oops+0x1:jmp i586_bzero_oops
late into the boot (during network/RPC init stuff).
I thought the 586 FP
13 matches
Mail list logo