Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It did the trick. I got a network. But I also got a hell of a lot of
'enqueued dead tasks'. But stupid me forgot to turn on capture in
minicom, and haven't been able to reproduce the problem. I rebooted
the machine which blew
* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To try and reproduce it again, I've added in /etc/rc3.d an S98reboot that
> > will switch the system to runlevel 6 again, and repeat the process over
> > and over. All this while connect to minicom and capturing. Hopefully it
> > will eventually
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> To try and reproduce it again, I've added in /etc/rc3.d an S98reboot that
> will switch the system to runlevel 6 again, and repeat the process over
> and over. All this while connect to minicom and capturing. Hopefully it
> will eventually show the
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It did the trick. I got a network. But I also got a hell of a lot of
> > 'enqueued dead tasks'. But stupid me forgot to turn on capture in
> > minicom, and haven't been able to reproduce the problem. I
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It did the trick. I got a network. But I also got a hell of a lot of
'enqueued dead tasks'. But stupid me forgot to turn on capture in
minicom, and haven't been able to reproduce the problem. I rebooted
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
To try and reproduce it again, I've added in /etc/rc3.d an S98reboot that
will switch the system to runlevel 6 again, and repeat the process over
and over. All this while connect to minicom and capturing. Hopefully it
will eventually show the same
* Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To try and reproduce it again, I've added in /etc/rc3.d an S98reboot that
will switch the system to runlevel 6 again, and repeat the process over
and over. All this while connect to minicom and capturing. Hopefully it
will eventually show the
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It did the trick. I got a network. But I also got a hell of a lot of
'enqueued dead tasks'. But stupid me forgot to turn on capture in
minicom, and haven't been able to reproduce the problem. I rebooted
the machine which blew
* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > is PCI_MSI enabled by any chance? That is known to break level-triggered
> > > IOAPIC irqs and devices.
> >
> > As a matter of fact it is... I'll turn it off now and try it out.
> > If the commit is still going, I'll get you a response about
* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It did the trick. I got a network. But I also got a hell of a lot of
> 'enqueued dead tasks'. But stupid me forgot to turn on capture in
> minicom, and haven't been able to reproduce the problem. I rebooted
> the machine which blew away all
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Darn subversion! I just started a massive commit, and I can't leave work
> till it's done. So you still got me here ;-)
That commit is still going. I can see why subversion was not used for
kernel development.
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar
Darn subversion! I just started a massive commit, and I can't leave work
till it's done. So you still got me here ;-)
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I also want to let you know that the e100 does not work. It's
> > detected, but it wont bring up DHCP, and when I manually
* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> I've just downloaded 51-09 and tried running it here on a normal intel
> pentium4 box here at my customers site. It included some hotplug PCI
> modules (I don't know why since it's doesn't have hotplug devices) and
> I got some
Hi Ingo,
I've just downloaded 51-09 and tried running it here on a normal intel
pentium4 box here at my customers site. It included some hotplug PCI
modules (I don't know why since it's doesn't have hotplug devices) and I
got some init_MUTEX_LOCKED bugs on them. Below you will find the patch
Hi Ingo,
I've just downloaded 51-09 and tried running it here on a normal intel
pentium4 box here at my customers site. It included some hotplug PCI
modules (I don't know why since it's doesn't have hotplug devices) and I
got some init_MUTEX_LOCKED bugs on them. Below you will find the patch
* Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ingo,
I've just downloaded 51-09 and tried running it here on a normal intel
pentium4 box here at my customers site. It included some hotplug PCI
modules (I don't know why since it's doesn't have hotplug devices) and
I got some
Darn subversion! I just started a massive commit, and I can't leave work
till it's done. So you still got me here ;-)
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Anyway, I also want to let you know that the e100 does not work. It's
detected, but it wont bring up DHCP, and when I manually
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Darn subversion! I just started a massive commit, and I can't leave work
till it's done. So you still got me here ;-)
That commit is still going. I can see why subversion was not used for
kernel development.
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It did the trick. I got a network. But I also got a hell of a lot of
'enqueued dead tasks'. But stupid me forgot to turn on capture in
minicom, and haven't been able to reproduce the problem. I rebooted
the machine which blew away all evidence of
* Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is PCI_MSI enabled by any chance? That is known to break level-triggered
IOAPIC irqs and devices.
As a matter of fact it is... I'll turn it off now and try it out.
If the commit is still going, I'll get you a response about the result.
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i have digged out an older HT-box .config of yours and have reproduced
> an assert quite similar to the one above. Found one bug in that area:
> the assert (conditional on RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT) was done a bit too early,
> i have fixed this in my tree and
* William Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the results of trying out everything from -50-45 through -51-01 on
> the SMT box:
thanks for the extensive testing!
> -51-01 won't boot:
>
> softirq-timer/1/13[CPU#1]: BUG in up_mutex at kernel/rt.c:1302
i have digged out an older
* William Weston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's the results of trying out everything from -50-45 through -51-01 on
the SMT box:
thanks for the extensive testing!
-51-01 won't boot:
softirq-timer/1/13[CPU#1]: BUG in up_mutex at kernel/rt.c:1302
i have digged out an older HT-box
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
i have digged out an older HT-box .config of yours and have reproduced
an assert quite similar to the one above. Found one bug in that area:
the assert (conditional on RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT) was done a bit too early,
i have fixed this in my tree and have
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> i've uploaded the -50-45 patch, can you under this kernel trigger a
> 'meltdown' on your SMT box?
Hi Ingo,
Here's the results of trying out everything from -50-45 through -51-01 on
the SMT box:
-50-47 looks better. 4x burnP6 + wmcube doesn't bring
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
i've uploaded the -50-45 patch, can you under this kernel trigger a
'meltdown' on your SMT box?
Hi Ingo,
Here's the results of trying out everything from -50-45 through -51-01 on
the SMT box:
-50-47 looks better. 4x burnP6 + wmcube doesn't bring the
26 matches
Mail list logo
