Re: [PATCH] via82cxxx_audio

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi, > > A patch for the via82cxxx_audio sound driver against 2.4.1-pre8. > It includes: > > 1. Support for variable fragment size and variable fragment number > 2. Fixes for the SPEED, STEREO, CHANNELS, FMT ioctls when in read & write > mode > 2.1 Mmaped sound is

Re: pre5 VM feedback..

On 15 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >$!@#@! pre6 is already out :) > > Yes, and for heavens sake don't use it, because the reiserfs merge got > some dirty inode logic wrong. pre7 fixes just that one line and

Re: pre5 VM feedback..

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > The swapin readahead code tries to allocate (1 << page_cluster) pages at > each swapin. > > This means there's a big chance of having (1 << page_cluster) > "self-swap-out"'s at each swapin if we're under low memory. > > Nasty. Actually its

Re: Is sendfile all that sexy?

> Which in turn implies that the non-disk target hardware has to be able to > have a PCI-mapped memory buffer for the source or the destination, AND > they have to be able to cope with the fact that the data you get off the > disk will have to be the raw data at 512-byte granularity. And that

Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Albert D. Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >What about getting rid of both that and the pointer, and just >hanging that data on the end as a variable length array? > >struct kiovec2{ > int nbufs; > /* ... */ > struct kiobuf[0]; >} If the struct ends up

Re: VIA chipset discussion

On Jan 18 2001, Matthew Fredrickson wrote: > BTW, are you having any trouble with your ps/2 mouse port in X? Like I said in the previous e-mail, I'm using right now an Asus A7V mobo with Linus' stock kernel 2.2.18 with André's patches. I'm using basically a

Re: pppoe in 2.4.0

- Original Message - From: "Ian Macdonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:10 AM Subject: Re: pppoe in 2.4.0 > On 19 Jan 2001 03:51:20 +0100 in caliban.linux.kernel, you wrote: > > >Does anyone have pppoe working with 2.4.0? > > > >I'm

Re: pppoe in 2.4.0

- Original Message - From: "Ian Macdonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:10 AM Subject: Re: pppoe in 2.4.0 > On 19 Jan 2001 03:51:20 +0100 in caliban.linux.kernel, you wrote: > > >Does anyone have pppoe working with 2.4.0? > > > >I'm

Re: pppoe in 2.4.0

On 19 Jan 2001 03:51:20 +0100 in caliban.linux.kernel, you wrote: >Does anyone have pppoe working with 2.4.0? > >I'm running 2.4.0-ac9 with ppp and pppoe compiled into the kernel (I've >tried with modules too) > >The pppd simply refuses to acknowlege the presence of ppp support in the >kernel.

[2.4.1-pre8] MPP related OPPS

I reported this a few months ago without much details and the machine involved died shortly after which made me think that this oops was merely bad hardware. This is a brand new machine and the opps popped up again. Thankfully I armed myself with a serial console and captured this beast.

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19 2001, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote: > > Redone with big enough swap by requests. > > 2.4.0,132MB swap > > 548.81user 128.97system11:22 99%CPU (442433major+705419minor) > > 561.12user 171.06system12:29 97%CPU (446949major+712525minor)

Re: Is there a Crystal 4299 sound driver?

Torrey Hoffman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > Does anyone know of a driver for the Crystal 4299 sound chip? It's not something there's one particular sound driver for (it's just an ac97 codec chip, as you saw). Most likely you want to use something like the i810_audio or via82cxxx_audio drivers.

Re: named streams, extended attributes, and posix

Unfortunately, unix allows everything but "/" in filenames. This was probably a mistake, as it makes it nearly impossible to augment the namespace, but it is the reality. Did you read the "new namespace" section of the paper? It also talked a bit about supporting Extended Attributes, which are

Re: [off topic] Re: .br blacklisted ?

Brad Felmey wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:53:32 +, you, David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > wrote: > > >So you can't fault John for personally effecting a policy similar to what > >ORBS does en masse. > > Of course I can. A bad implementation is a bad implementation. > MAPS/ORBS is and has

Re: [off topic] Re: .br blacklisted ?

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:53:32 +, you, David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote: >So you can't fault John for personally effecting a policy similar to what >ORBS does en masse. Of course I can. A bad implementation is a bad implementation. MAPS/ORBS is and has been a royal screwup from the word

Network response time issue

I am investigating a web site response time issue that one of our patrons is having. After ruling out the obvious, I ran a tcpdump, and compared the packet trace to other web sessions that had reasonable response time, and found that the session that was having problems had a mss of 536, while

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

dean gaudet wrote: > the reason, gag puke, is for doing things such as sending "activity" > progress -- like a line at a time or whatever to indicate that the CGI is > there and still working. I understand the gagging on this and generally I agree. I do appreciate having the ability to do this

Re: [off topic] Re: .br blacklisted ?

Brad Felmey wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:19:31 -0500, you, "John O'Donnell" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote: > > >Maybe you don't understand. > > No, John, it's quite obvious that it's _you_ who does not understand. > You've saved yourself some spam and pissed off a good deal of the > kernel

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

ok i'm spouting lots today sorry! :) can i just say this solves even more problems? there's a problem with the current apache pipeline code where if a pipeline consists of, say, a light request followed by a heavy request. a "light" request is say, a static file, something that essentially is

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

huh -- i think with this apache could solve the problem documented in heidemann's paper while also leaving nagle on... which would solve the CGI dribbler vs. bulk problem i just posted about. at the end of a request apache would check first if it can get another request without blocking; if it

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Zach Brown wrote: > We set TCP_CORK on the socket we handed to external programs that were > being run via 'site exec' in an ftp server. It resulted in much nicer > packets being spit out, especially in the 'ls' case where it likes to > write() on really goofy boundaries. >

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

btw -- i'd like to point out something which some folks are aware of already. pipelining was only part of the answer to fixing HTTP/1.0 network performance problems. the real answer is a multiplexing protocol such as WebMUX . a MUX protocol is more general

Re: [off topic] Re: .br blacklisted ?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:19:31 -0500, you, "John O'Donnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote: >Maybe you don't understand. No, John, it's quite obvious that it's _you_ who does not understand. You've saved yourself some spam and pissed off a good deal of the kernel list, including the ones who are in

PROBLEM: Kernel crash with cron/mail?

1] Kernel crash with cron/mail? 2] This problem happened while I was away from the computer, so I can only say what I could tell. Pine had apparently crashed the kernel, with the following output: - Unable to handle kernel paging

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Rick Jones wrote: > > actually the problem isn't nagle... nagle needs to be turned off for > > efficient servers anyhow. > > i'm not sure I follow that. could you expand on that a bit? the problem which caused us to disable nagle in apache is documented in this paper

pppoe in 2.4.0

Hello, Does anyone have pppoe working with 2.4.0? I'm running 2.4.0-ac9 with ppp and pppoe compiled into the kernel (I've tried with modules too) The pppd simply refuses to acknowlege the presence of ppp support in the kernel. The last release of pppd was in august 2000. Was this before the

Re: [Kiobuf-io-devel] Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1

>Ok. Then we need an additional more or less generic object that is used for >passing in a rw_kiovec file operation (and we really want that for many kinds >of IO). I thould mostly be used for communicating to the high-level driver. > >/* > * the name is just plain stupid, but that shouldn't

Re: Hang when booting 2.4.0/2.4.1-pre8 on Compaq 1850R with SMART 3200

On 19 Jan, Ian Macdonald wrote: > I get the same results when booting 2.4.1-pre8. The system works fine > with the 2.2.x kernel series, but I need some of the functionality in > the newer 2.4.x series. Try tweaking the controller BIOS, I cannot recall what the option was called but there is a

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Fri, Jan 19 2001, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote: > > Redone with big enough swap by requests. > > 2.4.0,132MB swap > 548.81user 128.97system11:22 99%CPU (442433major+705419minor) > 561.12user 171.06system12:29 97%CPU (446949major+712525minor) > 625.68user 2833.29system 1:12:38 79%CPU

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Fri, Jan 19 2001, Andi Kleen wrote: > Shouldn't it more depend on the bandwidth/latency of the IO device? Not really they should just make sure that we don't lock down all buffers. The low water mark is just to make sure we don't wake up readers/writers right after having blocked them. --

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

Redone with big enough swap by requests. 2.4.0,132MB swap 548.81user 128.97system11:22 99%CPU (442433major+705419minor) 561.12user 171.06system12:29 97%CPU (446949major+712525minor) 625.68user 2833.29system 1:12:38 79%CPU (638957major+1463974minor) === 2.4.1pre8,132MB swap

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:47:45AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19 2001, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Yes I agree, that values should probably be tweaked a bit. I'll > > > try and squeeze some testing in to generate the best possible > > > values. > > > > Please also add a sysctl. I always

Re: Is sendfile all that sexy?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Russell Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >"copy this fd to that one, and optimize that if you can" > >... isn't this Larry M's "splice" (http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/splice.ps)? We talked extensively about "splice()" with Larry. It was one of the

Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:35:02AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote: > > > >microseconds/yield > > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue > > > > -

Hang when booting 2.4.0/2.4.1-pre8 on Compaq 1850R with SMART 3200

I'm currently experiencing difficulty booting Linux 2.4.0 on a Compaq 1850R server with a SMART 3200 controller on board. When the SMART array is detected and the cpqarray driver is loaded, the system hangs at the following point: Compaq SMART2 Driver (v 2.4.1) Found 1 controller(s) cpqarray

Is there a Crystal 4299 sound driver?

Does anyone know of a driver for the Crystal 4299 sound chip? I grepped through /drivers/sound in both 2.2.18 and 2.4.0. The only hints were that "ac97_codec.c" has two codec id's listed for it. >From old changelogs I see that Mulder Tjeerd was involved in adding those... perhaps he is writing

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Fri, Jan 19 2001, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Yes I agree, that values should probably be tweaked a bit. I'll > > try and squeeze some testing in to generate the best possible > > values. > > Please also add a sysctl. I always feel uncomfortable with such hardcoded > heuristics. There tends to be

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Thu, Jan 18 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Marcelo can you give a try with `high_queued_sectors = total_ram / 3' and > > low_queued_sectors = high_queued_sectors / 2 and drop the big ram machine > > check? > > Andrea, > > With the changes you suggested I got almost the same results with >

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:40:23AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:17:13PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > Jens, can be the -blk patch the reason for the slowdown I'm seeing? > > > > This heuristic is way too aggressive:

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Marcelo can you give a try with `high_queued_sectors = total_ram / 3' and > low_queued_sectors = high_queued_sectors / 2 and drop the big ram machine > check? Andrea, With the changes you suggested I got almost the same results with pre8. - To

Modifying TCP implementation in Linux Kernel?

I'm working a research project along with a couple of other guys at University of Adelaide on optimising the congestion control scheme to improve performance. We are looking at modifying the TCP implementation in the linux Kernel, in order to take some measurments of the performance of the

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Fri, Jan 19 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:17:13PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Jens, can be the -blk patch the reason for the slowdown I'm seeing? > > This heuristic is way too aggressive: > > /* >* Try to keep 128MB max hysteris. If not

Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Thursday 18 January 2001 17:39, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try > > with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for > > OK! > > > what

Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Thursday 18 January 2001 17:33, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:08:52AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote: > > > > >microseconds/yield > > > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.4

Re: Scanning problems - machine lockups

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 11:24:54PM +, Stephen Kitchener wrote: > The only thing that might be odd is that the scanner's scsi card and the > display card are using the same IRQ, but I thought that IRQ sharing was ok in > the new kernels. The display card is an AGP type and the scsi card is

Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote: > > >microseconds/yield > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue > > > - --- > > > 16 18.7404.603

Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:30:41AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try > > with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for > > OK! > > > what

Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: > was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try > with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for OK! > what benchmarks/test methods I could use for scheduler testing. If > you remember what

Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:08:52AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote: > > > >microseconds/yield > > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue > > > > -

Re: console spin_lock

> This statement of mine was grade-A bollocks. printk cannot of > course call down(). It needs to use __down_trylock and buffer > it up if it fails. (faster, too!) Okay. I'm going to start working on this tomorrow. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: > > > > > You can see, mmap() read performance dropped significantly as > > > well as read() one raised. Plus, "interactivity" of 2.4.0 system > > > was much

Re: multi-queue scheduler update

While I agree that this is probably only a win for very specialized tasks, I'd be interested in seeing this patch implemented on a NUMA machine, with one runqueue per node... anybody willing to try it? I don't have access to one. How about from the Linux Scalability project at SGI? any comments?

Re: Is sendfile all that sexy?

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Roman Zippel wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > It's too damn device-dependent, and it's not worth it. There's no way to > > make it general with any current hardware, and there probably isn't going > > to be for at least another decade or so. And

typo in buffer_busy macro in fs/buffer.c ??

This looks like a typo: (line 2341 of fs/buffer.c in unpatched 2.4.0 line 2345 of fs/buffer.c in 2.4.1-pre8) #define buffer_busy(bh) (atomic_read(&(bh)->b_count) | ((bh)->b_state & BUFFER_BUSY_BITS)) surely, it should be: #define buffer_busy(bh) (atomic_read(&(bh)->b_count) || ((bh)->b_state &

Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote: > > >microseconds/yield > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue > > > - --- > > > 16 18.7404.603

Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the mainline O(N) > scheduler with over 7 tasks in the runqueue (actually I'm not sure if the > number was 7 but certainly it was under 10). So if you also use a O(1) >

Re: Documenting stat(2)

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 09:52:02PM +0100, Igmar Palsenberg wrote: > I use lstat to check if a config file is a symlink, and if it is, it > refuses to open it. Nice race condition. mrc -- Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly [EMAIL PROTECTED] and be right

Re: multi-queue scheduler update

> >microseconds/yield > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue > > - --- > > 16 18.7404.603 1.455 > > I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

Olivier Galibert wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:04:28PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > NAGLE algorithm is only one, CORK algorithm is another different algorithm. So > > probably it would be not appropriate to mix CORK and NAGLE under the name > > "CONTROL_NAGLING", but certainly I

Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield > > (which was previously posted to this (lse-tech) list by Bill > > Hartner). Tests were run on a

Re: Linux MegaRAID Driver Version 1.14b Release

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:58:22PM -0500, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote: > This driver replaces version 1.07b present in the standard 2.4.0 kernel. The > driver features are > 1. Supports more than 4 GB Addressing (full 64 bit addressing) > 2. IA32 / IA64 platform support > 3. Supports 2.2.XX &

Re: multi-queue scheduler update

What affect does this scheduler have on 1 - 5 tasks?? Gerhard On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote: > I just posted an updated version of the multi-queue scheduler > for the 2.4.0 kernel. This version also contains support for > realtime tasks. The patch can be found at: > >

Re: Is sendfile all that sexy?

Hi, On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > It's too damn device-dependent, and it's not worth it. There's no way to > make it general with any current hardware, and there probably isn't going > to be for at least another decade or so. And because it's expensive and > slow to do even on a

Off-Topic: how do I trace a PID over double-forks?

This is more a Unix API question than a Linux question. I hope the issue is interesting enough to be of interest to some of you. Basically, I am writing an init which features process watching capabilities. My init has a management channel with which you can tell it "the PID of the ssh process

RE: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset (fwd)

LKML, Here is Kim's response to the two issues and they are working on it. I removed address, email, phone numbers because it is my decission to do so to protect the positive entry points that I have made to prevent a flame mail box for this guy. Flame me, you will get it back. Evolution is

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:04:28PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > NAGLE algorithm is only one, CORK algorithm is another different algorithm. So > probably it would be not appropriate to mix CORK and NAGLE under the name > "CONTROL_NAGLING", but certainly I agree they could stay together under

Re: multi-queue scheduler update

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: > Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield > (which was previously posted to this (lse-tech) list by Bill > Hartner). Tests were run on a system with 8 700 MHz Pentium > III processors. > >

Re: APIC errors

"Maciej W. Rozycki" escribió: > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dominik Kubla wrote: > > > Just switched to 2.4.0-ac9 (+crypto patches) on our Dual-Pentium MMX > > webserver yesterday. Works fine so far, except i keep seeing those > > APIC erros (about 14 in 12 hrs) indicating receive, send and CS

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:17:13PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > Jens, can be the -blk patch the reason for the slowdown I'm seeing? This heuristic is way too aggressive: /* * Try to keep 128MB max hysteris. If not possible, * use half of RAM */

Linux MegaRAID Driver Version 1.14b Release

This driver replaces version 1.07b present in the standard 2.4.0 kernel. The driver features are 1. Supports more than 4 GB Addressing (full 64 bit addressing) 2. IA32 / IA64 platform support 3. Supports 2.2.XX & 2.4.XX kernels <> m114b.tar.gz

Re: Subtle MM bug

On 17 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >> I looked at it a year or two ago myself, and came to the > >> conclusion that I don't want to blow up our page table size by a > >> factor of three or more, so

multi-queue scheduler update

I just posted an updated version of the multi-queue scheduler for the 2.4.0 kernel. This version also contains support for realtime tasks. The patch can be found at: http://lse.sourceforge.net/scheduling/ Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield (which was previously

Re: VIA chipset discussion

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:32:39PM -0500, John O'Donnell wrote: > Matthew Fredrickson wrote: > > I have the ASUS CUV4X. > VIA vt82c686a (cf/cg) IDE UDMA66 controller on pci0:4.1 > I also run DMA66 with no problems here. > > I never have seen any issues with the PS/2 mouse and X. > I use the

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Steven Cole wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On my dbench runs I've noted a slowdown between pre4 and pre8 with 48 > > threads. (128MB, 2 CPU's machine) > > I ran dbench 48 four times in succession for 2.4.0 and 2.4.1-pre8. > The change in

more via-rhine problems.

5 mharris@asdf:~$ eth1: Transmit timed out, status , PHY status , resetting... eth1: Transmit timed out, status , PHY status , resetting... eth1: Transmit timed out, status , PHY status , resetting... eth1: Transmit timed out, status , PHY status , resetting...

Re: VIA chipset discussion

Matthew Fredrickson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 02:04:08AM -0200, Rogerio Brito wrote: > >> On Jan 17 2001, David D.W. Downey wrote: >> >>> Could those that were involved in the VIA chipset discussion email me >>> privately at [EMAIL PROTECTED]? >> >> Just to add a datapoint to the

Re: rsync + ssh fail on raid; okay on 2.2.x

Mark Hahn wrote: > > Kernel: 2.4.0, no patches > > use 2.4.1-pre8. much better VM tuning. Thank you Mark, I will try that. > > PIII 450MHz, 256MB RAM, Acus P3B-F motherboard (Intel 440BX) > > Mail going to Raid 1 device > > The file Inbox is only 2.9MB > > OS = Red Hat 7 with all updates,

Re: Linux not adhering to BIOS Drive boot order?

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:53:16PM +0200, Matti Aarnio wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 09:59:06AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ... > > > Yes. PCI-based drivers will most likely use bus order since the kernel > > > provides facilities to do this easily. For a single driver driving > > >

[PATCH] i91uscsi.c misreads BIOS settings

Here's a patch for i91uscsi.c as delivered with the 2.4.0 kernel to correct the problem of it reading the BIOS settings for double the SCSI id that it should be looking at. This is a two liner to correct this problem but I've done some fairly major cosmetic surgery on the rest of the driver

test, ignore

Please excuse this test. My last two messages to the list never got through (sendmail reports 'message accepted', but I never get a copy back). If I send to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I get replies fine. I can post to other majordomo lists. I was posting fine to linux-kernel until recently. I'm pretty

RE: ERR in /proc/interrupts

Timur, This isn't a SMP system. I have no plans to upgrade this box to SMP unless AMD has a processor ready for it ;-) Kernel 2.4.0test12 + reiserfs 3.6.23 Tyan K7 mobo AMD Athlon 800 (kernel built for AMD Athlon no SMP) d-link 530tx (via-rhine module) d-link 550tx

Re: [off topic] Re: .br blacklisted ?

Antony Suter wrote: > John O'Donnell wrote: > >> Roeland Th. Jansen wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 03:11:52AM -0500, John O'Donnell wrote: >>> >>> Please tell me I just didn't just see this message??!?!?!?! Please??!?!?!? What are you doing? I mean no one person here

Re: 2.4.1pre8 slowdown on dbench tests

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On my dbench runs I've noted a slowdown between pre4 and pre8 with 48 > threads. (128MB, 2 CPU's machine) I ran dbench 48 four times in succession for 2.4.0 and 2.4.1-pre8. The change in performance appears to be not significant. This was performed

Re: Mainboard with Serverworks HE Chipset

On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 12:33:09AM +0100, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > #include > > > > I got a "Tyan Thunder HE-SL"-Mainboard today, which has a "Severworks > ServerSet III HE"-Chipset. (2xPIII 933, 2x512MB PC133 ECC-Registered > SDRAM) > > And i have one problem and one question. > >

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello! > > > So if I understand all this correctly... > > > > The difference in ACK generation > > CORK does not affect receive direction and, hence, ACK geneartion. I was asking how the semantics of cork interacted with piggybacking ACK's on data flowing the

Re: ERR in /proc/interrupts

** Reply to message from "Jorge Boncompte \(DTI2\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:31:38 +0100 > Are IPI related to SMP machines? This is not an SMP machine nor kernel. Yes, Inter-Process Interrupts are an SMP thing. I know you need to have an SMP kernel for IPI's to be issued,

RE: ERR in /proc/interrupts

Are IPI related to SMP machines? This is not an SMP machine nor kernel. Regards. -Jorge == Jorge Boncompte - Técnico de sistemas DTI2 - Desarrollo de la Tecnología de las Comunicaciones

Re: ERR in /proc/interrupts

** Reply to message from Tim Walberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:10:00 -0600 > A quick perusal of the 2.2.18 source code (I don't have > a copy of 2.4.x handy) shows that it's directly > related to the number of IPIs (inter-processor > interrupts) the system has taken. I'm not

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > BTW, the simmetry between getsockopt/setsockopt further bias how > SIOCPUSH doesn't fit into the setsockopt options but it fits very well > into the ioctl categorty instead. There's simply no state one can > return via getsockopt for the SIOCPUSH

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:57:20PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > { > > > int val = 1; > > > setsockopt(req->sock, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_CORK, > > > (char *),sizeof(val)); > > > val = 0; > > >

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > This is a possible slow (but userspace based) implementation of SIOCPUSH: of course this is what i meant. Lets stop wasting time on this, ok? Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a

Re: ERR in /proc/interrupts

A quick perusal of the 2.2.18 source code (I don't have a copy of 2.4.x handy) shows that it's directly related to the number of IPIs (inter-processor interrupts) the system has taken. I'm not real sure under what conditions this occurs, but it's someplace to start... tw

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 09:44:57PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > why? TCP_CORK is equivalent to MSG_MORE, it's just a different I thought you agreed it isn't (Linus's example I quoted). > > Doing PUSH from setsockopt(TCP_CORK) looked obviously wrong because it > > isn't setting any socket state,

Re: console spin_lock

Andrew Morton writes: > The subtler problem will be interrupt-capable drivers which > do a bare spin_lock() to serialise wrt their interrupt routines, > relying upon interrupts being disabled. They'll be deadlocky > and will need changing. That's trivial to find and fix though. Uhh, what if

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > { > > int val = 1; > > setsockopt(req->sock, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_CORK, > > (char *),sizeof(val)); > > val = 0; > > setsockopt(req->sock, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_CORK, > > (char

ERR in /proc/interrupts

What does ERR mean in /proc/interrupts? I have a computer running 2.4.0test12 that has a lot of this ERR's? CPU0 0: 116445752 XT-PIC timer 1: 389614 XT-PIC keyboard 2: 0 XT-PIC cascade 5: 34298837 XT-PIC eth1 8:

kernel 2.4, iproute2 and routing rules that refuse to match

Greetings, I'm posting here as a last resort. I've been working on this problem for about two months now without success. I've tried everything I can think of to no avail. I'm hoping that by posting here, someone can at least point me in the right direction. If replying to the list, please CC my

Re: named streams, extended attributes, and posix

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yesterday, Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Yeah, I agree, 'file/stream' is lousy syntax as well. If it weren't > for the possibility of having streams on directories, it would almost > be acceptible. I still don't know which

Re: Problem with networking in 2.4.0

Bill Crawford wrote: > In connection with connection failures using recent kernels, it often > seems to be related to ECN being enabled. > > PIX firewalls seem to interpret the ECN option header as a source > route header (that's what it's logged as). > > I got bitten by this at work ;·(

Re: [BUG] Panic in smp_call_function_interrupt

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, I wrote: > [root@picasso /]# dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null [ causes an oops on our SMP machines ] > This is a 2.4.0 (release) with kdb 1.7 for 2.4.0. I tried the same on a > similar machine with 2 CPUs and without kdb, it gave the same result. A > 2.4.0 without SMP support

  1   2   3   4   5   >