On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 16:25 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 January 2008 16:03, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I've hit same twice recently (not pan, and not repeatable).
>
> Nasty. The attached patch is something really simple that can sometimes help.
> sysrq+
Greetings,
Freshly pulled 2.6.23.git failed to build:
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.c', needed by
`arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.s'. Stop.
make: *** [prepare0] Error 2
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: sen
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 19:14 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> It is just.. I could be the hardware - but I should have seen the
> same 'problem' with earlier kernels - and the 'almost daily oops' only
> started with 2.6.23.
Nonetheless, the oopsen _suggest_ hardware. If it were my box, I'
On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 04:52 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> So, user tasks running with SCHED_FIFO should be able to lock a system?
> I guess I see both sides of this argument - yes, it's userspace at
> fault, but in other cases when userspace is at fault, we take action
> (OOM, segfault, others). Is
On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 02:52 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:39:30 +0100 Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 04:52 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> >
> > > So, user tasks running with SCHED_FIFO should
Greetings,
s2ram recently became useful here, except for the kernel's annoying
habit of disabling my P4's perfectly good TSC.
[ 107.894470] CPU 1 is now offline
[ 107.894474] SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
[ 107.895832] CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
[ 107.895836] domain 0: span 1
[ 1
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 12:09 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Are we missing some logic to resync the TSCs after resume, or something?
They used to be forcibly synchronized during boot, but it seems that was
dropped in 2.6.21.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc
stale value, we blame the TSC. Reset to pristine condition
after every test.
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
index 9125efe..05d8f25 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 19:27 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 12:09 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
>
> > Are we missing some logic to resync the TSCs after resume, or something?
>
> They used to be forcibly synchronized during boot, but it seems that was
&
(hm, google says i'm not the only one seeing this, so...)
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 00:32 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Maxim,
>
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 01:00 +0200, Maxim wrote:
> > >Mar 14 00:22:23 MAIN kernel: [2.072931] checking TSC synchronization
> > >[CPU#0 -> CPU#1]:
> > >Mar 14 00:22:
On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 15:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > ok, i prefer this fix a bit more. (we dont want to set last_tsc
> > outside of the sync_lock - which your initial patch does)
>
> i've added your patch to x86.git - thanks Mike! (patch below) I think
> this would be too dangerous for v2.
On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 15:54 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> OK, -rt2 will take a bit more beating from me before I release it, so it
> might take some time to get it out (expect it out on Monday).
Ah, that reminds me (tests, yup) I still need the patchlet below to
resume from ram without black sc
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 07:13 -0500, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 3:27 AM, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 15:54 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
>
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 14:25 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> No, I just copied the matching paranoia while leering at it.
Actually, I can't say definitively no, only that a panic() there didn't
make keyboard blink. Suspend may be disabling blinkies, dunno.
-Mike
--
To uns
Greetings,
I receive $subject upon every resume.
[ 115.223202] CPU1 is down
[3.725918] Intel machine check architecture supported.
[3.725925] Intel machine check reporting enabled on CPU#0.
[3.725927] CPU0: Intel P4/Xeon Extended MCE MSRs (12) available
[3.725930] CPU0: Thermal m
Greetings,
Per $subject, echo jiffies > current_clocksource pretty thoroughly kills
my P4 box, and does so with every kernel I have (2.6.22->present). I
can drive the box via mouse clicks and poke around, but trying to select
another clocksource thereafter is nogo.. cat current_clocksource emits
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 14:25 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I forgot about it too. I'll likely poke at it again.
push_rt_task()
find_lock_lowest_rq()
find_lowest_rq()
return pick_optimal_cpu().
returned cpu is offline. Box prefers -1.
-Mike
--
To unsubscr
debug resume trace
static inline int pick_optimal_cpu(int this_cpu, cpumask_t *mask)
{
int first;
/* "this_cpu" is cheaper to preempt than a remote processor */
if ((this_cpu != -1) && cpu_isset(this_cpu, *mask))
return this_cpu;
first = first_cpu
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 17:59 -0800, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> Hi Ingo... back to testing.
> History:
>
> 2.6.23.x + rt has not been very usable for audio applications.
> 2.6.24-rt1: same so far.
>
> Why: Jack keeps printing "delayed..." messages and has xruns which means
> that somehow
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 13:39 +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 27. Januar 2008 schrieben Sie:
> >
> > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 12:00 +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> > > BTW the dnetc process runs under the user "dnetc" with nice level -19,
> > > my process runs under my own user id "tfoerste"
At 12:01 AM 3/13/2005 -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You wanna give me a quick run-down on x86 of CPL and Ring levels? It's
been bugging me. I know they're there and have a basic idea that they
control what a context can do, don't know what CPL stan
oaded the -D8 patch to the
usual place:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/rt-limit-patches/
does it fix your crash? Mike Galbraith reported a crash too that i think
could be the same one.
Yeah, my crash log is 120KB longer, but it looks the same, and is also
fixed by D8.
-Mike
-
To unsubscrib
At 03:01 AM 1/28/2005 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jack O'Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > i'm wondering, couldnt Jackd solve this whole issue completely in
>> > user-space, via a simple setuid-root wrapper app that does nothing else
>> > but validates
At 12:53 PM 2/24/2005 -0500, Chad N. Tindel wrote:
> > Hmmm... Are you suggesting it is OK for a kernel to get nearly completely
> > hosed and for not fully utilize all the processors in the system because
> > of one SCHED_FIFO thread?
>
> Sure. You specifically directed the scheduler to run your
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Tom Sightler wrote:
>
> > 1. Transfer of the first 100-150MB is very fast (9.8MB/sec via 100Mb Ethernet,
> > close to wire speed). At this point Linux has yet to write the first byte to
> > disk. OK, this might be an exaggerated,
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Roger Larsson wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2001 10:47, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2001 05:16, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Tom Sightler wrote:
> > > > Quoting Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > After the initial burst, the system
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> [Request For Testers: please test this on your system...]
>
> Hi,
>
> the following patch makes use of the fact that refill_inactive()
> now calls swap_out() before calling refill_inactive_scan() and
> the fact that the inactive_dirty list is now reclai
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Of course FreeBSD has a block cursor. It was easy to program,
> and it seems nice to the pot-smoking hippies out in Berkeley.
> FreeBSD doesn't define standards. FreeBSD breaks standards.
> (zombie creation, "ps -ef", partition tables, pty allocatio
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday 16 June 2001 23:06, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > As a side note, the good old multisecond delay before bdflush kicks in
> > > doesn't really make a lot of sense - when bandwidth is available the
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:05:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > It _juuust_ so happens that I was tinkering... what do you think of
> > something like the below? (and boy do I ever wonder what a certain
> > box do
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 17 June 2001 12:05, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > It _juuust_ so happens that I was tinkering... what do you think of
> > something like the below? (and boy do I ever wonder what a certain
> > box doing slrn stuff thi
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:37:21AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Yes, this is expected behaviour with -ac14, -pre3 and newer.
>
> If that means anything that doesn't happen here based on pre3.
It doesn't happen here either. Even with (ever so slig
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, root wrote:
> Regarding to the discussion on the swap size,
>
> Recently, Rick van Riel posted a message that there is a bug
> related to "reclaiming" the swap, and said that it is on his
> TODO list.
That's fixed.
> If I believe it, the current trouble we have regarding to
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, root wrote:
> >
> > > Regarding to the discussion on the swap size,
> > >
> > > Recently, Rick van Riel posted a message that there is a bug
&
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Steve Kieu wrote:
> Just an information for you to compare, now I am
> running the kernel compile from mandrake 80; version
> 2.4.3-20mdk on a
> machine Intel celeron 400Mhz 128M RAM, i810 graphic
> card (it will use some memory) ; runing together
> Star Office 5.2, Netscape
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > 2 4 2 77084 1524 18396 66904 0 1876 108 2220 2464 66079 198 1
^
> Ok, I suspect that GFP_BUFFER allocations are fucking up here (they can't
> block on IO, so the
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > > > 2 4 2 77084 1524 18396 66904 0 1876
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Tom Vier wrote:
> i having some strange vm behavour with -ac17 that didn't happen with -ac14
> (i haven't tried 15 or 16). it starts swapping even when i have hundreds of
> megs of free ram. [...]
>
> vmstat:
>procs memoryswap io syst
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > > > 2 4 2 77084 1524 18396 66904 0 1876
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > One thing that _could_ be done about looping allocations is to steal
> > a page from the clean list ignoring PageReferenced (if you have any).
> > That would be a very expensiv
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Walter Hofmann wrote:
> Ok, I managed to press SysRq-T this time ond got a trace for my hang.
> Symbols are resolved by klog. If you prefer ksymopps please tell me, I
> used klog because ksymopps seems to drop all lines without symbols.
Someone else might want that and/or a
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Tom Vier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 09:06:42AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > It's not actually swapping unless you see IO (si/so). It's allocating
> > swap space, but won't send pages out to disk unless there's demand. One
>
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the "hack" below in proc_file_read() fs/proc/generic.c (2.4.5)
> irritates me:
>
> If I do use "start" for a pointer into a memory area
> allocated in read_proc, will it be always guaranteed
> that (start > page)?
>
> If no, this will IMO lead to
Hi,
I stumbled onto a strange behavior which may or may not be related
to the stalls reported by a couple of people.
What I did, was to run bonnie in tmpfs to beat up the swap code a
bit. My setup is 128mb ram, and 256mb swap on /dev/hda2, single
spindle. All runs very smoothly (tremendous wri
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Shhh ;-) Last time that hack was mentioned, someone wanted to _remove_
> > it. It's a very nice little hack to have around, and IKD uses it.
>
> I am not saying it should be removed. But IMO it is a legitimate (if
> not the originally intende
On 25 Jun 2001, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2001 22:36:25 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > recompiled it yet). I have a 140 mb swap partition set up but at the time
> > > this happened it was OFF. I was (still am) running X + twm + two xterms
> > >
> > > top gives me:
> > > mem: 62144k av, 611
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > is very oom with no disk activity. It _looks_ (xmm and vmstat) like
> > it just ran out of cleanable dirty pages. With or without swap,
>
> ... Bingo. You hit the i
At 07:14 PM 1/14/2005 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 05:31 PM 1/13/2005 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
>>Yes. However, my tests have so far shown a need for "actual FIFO as
>>long as the task behaves itself."
>
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Dan Maas wrote:
> The only other possibility I can think of is a scheduler anomaly. A thread
> arose on this list recently about strange scheduling behavior of processes
> using local IPC - even though one process had readable data pending, the
> kernel would still go idle un
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Basically, I don't want to mix synchronous and asynchronous
> > interfaces. Everything should be asynchronous by default, and waiting
> > should be explicit.
>
> The following patch changes all swap IO
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Comments?
> >
> > More of a question. Neither Ingo's nor your patch makes any difference
> > on my UP box (128mb PIII/500) doing make -j30.
>
> Well, m
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > (I can get it to under 9 with MUCH extremely ugly tinkering. I've done
> > this enough to know that I _should_ be able to do 8 1/2 minutes ~easily)
>
> Which kind of changes you're doing to get better performance on this test?
:)
2.4.4.pre7.virgi
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > More of a question. Neither Ingo's nor your patch makes any
> > difference on my UP box (128mb PIII/500) doing make -j30. [...]
>
> (the patch Marcelo sent is the -B3 p
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> I am seeing this as well on 2.4.3 with both _get_free_pages() and
> kmalloc(). In the kmalloc case, the modules hang waiting
> for memory.
Would adding __builtin_return_address(0) to the warning help locate?
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > 2.4.4.pre7.virgin
> > real11m33.589s
>
> > 2.4.4.pre7.sillyness
> > real9m30.336s
>
> very interesting. Looks like there are still reserves in the VM, for
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Have you tried to tune SWAP_SHIFT and the priority used inside swap_out()
> to see if you can make pte deactivation less aggressive ?
Many many many times.. no dice.
(more agressive is much better for surge regulation.. power brakes!)
-Mike
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > limit the runtime of refill_inactive_scan(). This is similar to Rik's
> > reclaim-limit+aging-tuning patch to linux-mm yesterday. could you try
> > Rik's patch with your patch except this jiffies hack, does it still
>
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > (i cannot see how this chunk affects the VM, AFAICS this too makes the
> > > zapping of the cache less agressive.)
> >
> > (more folks get snagged on write.. th
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > 1. pagecache is becoming swapcache and must be aged before anything is
> > > done. Meanwhile we're calling
> > I have not tried it, but I would think that setting HZ to 1024
> > should make a big improvement in responsiveness.
> >
> > Currently, the time slice allocated to a standard Linux
> > process is 5*HZ, or 50ms when HZ is 100. That means that you
> > will notice keystrokes being echoed slowly i
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > > > No. It livelocked on me with almost all active pages exausted.
> > > > Misspoke.. I didn't try the two mixed. Rik's patch livelocked me.
> > &
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > I decided to take a break from pondering input and see why the thing
> > ran itself into the ground. Methinks I was sent the wrooong patch :)
>
> Mike,
>
> Please apply
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Have you looked at "free_pte()"? I don't like that function, and it might
> make a difference. There are several small nits with it:
snip
> I _think_ the logic should be something along the lines of: "freeing the
> page amounts to a implied down-agin
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Nigel Gamble wrote:
> > What about SCHED_YIELD and allocating during vm stress times?
snip
> A well-written GUI should not be using SCHED_YIELD. If it is
I was refering to the gui (or other tasks) allocating memory during
vm stress periods, and running into the yield in _
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Nigel Gamble wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Nigel Gamble wrote:
> > > > What about SCHED_YIELD and allocating during vm stress times?
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > A well-written GUI shou
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:27:29PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > What about /proc/slabinfo? Notice that 2.4.4 (and couple of the 2.4.4-pre)
> > > has a bug in prune_icache() that makes it underestim
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:58:52PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Hmm... I'd say that you also have a leak in kmalloc()'ed stuff - something
> > in 1K--2K range. From your logs it looks like the thing never shrinks and
> > grows prettu fast...
>
> Sa
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Pavel Machek writes:
>
> > It should ot break anything. gcc decides its bad to inline it, so it
> > does not inline it. Small code growth at worst. Compiler has right to
> > make your code bigger or slower, if it decides to do so.
>
> Oh come on. Th
Greetings,
While running a ktrace enabled kernel (IKD), I noticed many useless
context switches. The problem is that we continually pester kswapd/
kflushd at times when they can't do anything other than go back to
sleep. As you'll see below, we do this quite a bit under heavy load.
Before:
use
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I have been monitoring the memory usage constantly with the gnome
> > memory usage meter and noticed that as swap grows it is never freed
> > back up. I can kill off most of the large applications, such as
I've seen this mentioned a few times now and am
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > If I turn swap off all together or turn it off and back on
> > > > periodically to clear the swap before it gets full, I do not seem to
> > > > experience the lockups.
> >
> > Why do I not see this behavior with a heavy swap throughput test load?
> > I
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Does any swap write/release if you hit such a box with heavy duty IO?
> > (pages on dirty list, swapspace allocated but writeout defered?)
>
> Hard to tell. I switched my desktop box back to 2.2 a while back
> until the VM works.
I should have reversed to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > 2.4.4.pre7.virgin
> > real11m33.589s
> > user7m57.790s
> > sys 0m38.730s
> >
> > 2.4.4.pre7.sillyness
> > real9m30.336s
> > use
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > 1. pagecache is becoming swapcache and must be aged before anything is
> > done. Meanwhile we're calling refill_inactive_scan() so fast that noone
> > has a chance to touch a
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > > limit the runtime of refill_inactive_scan(). This is similar to Rik's
> > > > reclaim-limit+aging-tunin
On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is fine.
> > > If it isn't worth $15K to protect your code then it is worth so little to
> > > you that there re
On 13 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Sat, 12 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Why do I not see this behavior with a heavy swap throughput test
> > load? It seems decidedly odd to me that swapspace should remain
> > allocated on other folks
On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Galbraith) wrote on 13.05.01 in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in
> > > <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Found this bit of unused code in the i386 and sh architectures. As it's not being
>used, let's get rid of it. Also, pgtable.h seems to be an odd place for this.
I'd leave it.. folks with early boot troubles might find it useful.
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> At 7:36 PM +0200 2001-05-15, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
> >
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> Found this bit of unused code in the i386 and sh architectures.
> >>
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Chris Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > 2.4.4-ac10
> [...]
> > - now 2.4.5pre vm seems sane dump other vmscan
> > experiments
>
> Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ?
Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
bu
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ?
> >
> > Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
> > but it swaps too heavily. It's a littl
At 03:50 PM 1/23/2005 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
Looks like the number of steps to convert a modern "standard setup"
desktop to a low latency one on linux aren't that big after all :)
Yup, modern must be the key. Even Ingo can't help my little ole PIII/500
with YMF-740C. Dang thing can't handle
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 12:23 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > once that tracer bug was fixed, the best method to generate a trace
> > was to do this:
> >
> >echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/stackframe_tracing
> >echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/syscall_tracing
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 12:45 +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 10:57:45AM +0800, Wang, Baojun wrote:
> >hi, list
> >
> > I've upgraded my kernel from 2.6.22.9 to 2.6.23 when it was out, After
> > that
> >I can't install ELDK 4.1 anymore (The one I installed was crashed), it
> >al
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 15:32 +0800, Wang, Baojun wrote:
> > Perhaps he has any tasks stuck in 'D' state? If so, SysRq-t output for
> > these would be a good thing to collect. What leads him to suspect the
> > process scheduler, etc. More details are needed.
> The task is S+ state, please see in
Greetings,
For quite a while now, RT kernels have been locking up on me
occasionally while my back is turned. Yesterday, the little bugger
finally pounced while my serial console box was up and waiting.
[10138.162953] WARNING: at arch/i386/kernel/smp.c:581
native_smp_call_function_mask()
[10138
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 07:21 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> For quite a while now, RT kernels have been locking up on me
> occasionally while my back is turned. Yesterday, the little bugger
> finally pounced while my serial console box was up and waiting.
>
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 19:15 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Saturday 27 October 2007 15:21, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > For quite a while now, RT kernels have been locking up on me
> > occasionally while my back is turned. Yesterday, the little bugger
&
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 11:44 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > [10138.175796] [] show_trace+0x12/0x14
> > > [10138.180291] [] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
> > > [10138.184769] [] native_smp_call_function_mask+0x138/0x13d
> > > [10138.191117] [] smp_call_functi
Greetings,
I've stumbled across a 2.6.22->2.6.23 regression. First md5sum access
of an empty NTFS file leads to kernel I/O error gripe, a second access
leaves md5sum hung. 2.6.22.10 has no trouble accessing this file.
Looking at the 22->23 diff, I don't see a quick and dirty stab
candidate, and
hrmph, CC to members only list removed.
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 07:08 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I've stumbled across a 2.6.22->2.6.23 regression. First md5sum access
> of an empty NTFS file leads to kernel I/O error gripe, a second access
> leaves md5s
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:31 +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Could you post the complete dmesg output, please?
Attached. This is after a reboot though, but a fresh attempt to sum the
0 length file, so the NTFS message is there.
> Nothing related has changed in the NTFS driver between 2.6.22.1
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:39 +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for the files. That is really odd. And you are sure this just
> works with 2.6.22.10 on the exact same file? Have you run "chkdsk /
> f /v /x" on the NTFS volume from Windows?
Yes, 2.6.22.10 can md5sum that
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 15:43 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:39 +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Thanks for the files. That is really odd. And you are sure this just
> > works with 2.6.22.10 on the exact same file? Have y
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 16:18 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 15:43 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:39 +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the files. That is really odd. And you a
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that out.
My box bugged during boot the first time I booted 23-rc1, but nothing
made it to the console, and I didn't have a serial console running. I
didn't have DEBUG_PA
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 12:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that
> > out.
>
> My box bugged during boot the first time I booted 23-rc1,
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 11:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > I guess this was the bug:
>
> Looks very likely to me. Mike, Alexey, does this fix things for you?
I don't have very much runtime on it yet, but yes, it seems to have.
-Mike
On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 16:19 +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not to say that neither fix some problems, but for such conceptually
> > big changes, it should take a little more effort than a constructed test
> > case and no consideration of the a
701 - 800 of 3005 matches
Mail list logo
