Update: I tested 2.6.21-rc5 with the following settings
# CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
CONFIG_HPET_TIMER=y
CONFIG_HPET_EMULATE_RTC=y
# CONFIG_HPET is not set
1. Without additional kernel options
After systems comes out of suspend to ram, I observed the following
behaviour (I used s2ram from
Update: I tested 2.6.21-rc5 with the following settings
# CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
CONFIG_HPET_TIMER=y
CONFIG_HPET_EMULATE_RTC=y
# CONFIG_HPET is not set
1. Without additional kernel options
After systems comes out of suspend to ram, I observed the following
behaviour (I used s2ram from
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 13:16 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, now I'm confused.
> > > Could you pls list the full set of tests you want me to run,
> > > and what information to collect from each of them?
> >
> > 1. Test:
>
> I suspect step 0
* Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry, now I'm confused.
> > Could you pls list the full set of tests you want me to run,
> > and what information to collect from each of them?
>
> 1. Test:
I suspect step 0 would be use Linus' latest tree, ontop of -rc4:
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 12:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Sorry, now I'm confused.
> Could you pls list the full set of tests you want me to run,
> and what information to collect from each of them?
1. Test:
add clocksource=acpi_pm to command line with your current kernel config.
Check,
> Quoting Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [4/5] 2.6.21-rc4: known regressions (v2)
>
> On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 12:15 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Quoting Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Subject: R
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 12:15 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Subject: Re: [4/5] 2.6.21-rc4: known regressions (v2)
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 10:57 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > &
> Quoting Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [4/5] 2.6.21-rc4: known regressions (v2)
>
> On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 10:57 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Can you please test the following:
> > >
> > > Add &q
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 10:57 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Can you please test the following:
> >
> > Add "clocksource=acpi_pm" to the kernel commandline.
> >
> > If this does not change anything, then disable CONFIG_HPET and retry.
>
> I have:
> $ grep CONFIG_HPET .config
>
> > - Without CONFIG_NO_HZ
> > I last tested this with cd05a1f818073a623455a58e756c5b419fc98db9.
> > After systems comes out of suspend to ram, I observed the following
> > behaviour (I used s2ram from console):
> > 1. The first disk access takes much longer than with 2.6.20
> > 2.
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 09:11 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > I lost track of Michaels various nested problems.
> >
> > Michael can you please give a summary on _all_ entries in the
> > regressions list against Linus latest ?
>
> I tested 2 different configurations on my T60:
> - With
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 09:11 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I lost track of Michaels various nested problems.
Michael can you please give a summary on _all_ entries in the
regressions list against Linus latest ?
I tested 2 different configurations on my T60:
- With CONFIG_NO_HZ
- Without CONFIG_NO_HZ
I last tested this with cd05a1f818073a623455a58e756c5b419fc98db9.
After systems comes out of suspend to ram, I observed the following
behaviour (I used s2ram from console):
1. The first disk access takes much longer than with 2.6.20
2. System clock does
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 10:57 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Can you please test the following:
Add clocksource=acpi_pm to the kernel commandline.
If this does not change anything, then disable CONFIG_HPET and retry.
I have:
$ grep CONFIG_HPET .config
CONFIG_HPET_TIMER=y
Quoting Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [4/5] 2.6.21-rc4: known regressions (v2)
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 10:57 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Can you please test the following:
Add clocksource=acpi_pm to the kernel commandline.
If this does not change anything
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 12:15 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [4/5] 2.6.21-rc4: known regressions (v2)
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 10:57 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Can you please test the following:
Add clocksource
Quoting Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [4/5] 2.6.21-rc4: known regressions (v2)
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 12:15 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [4/5] 2.6.21-rc4: known regressions (v2)
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 10
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 12:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Sorry, now I'm confused.
Could you pls list the full set of tests you want me to run,
and what information to collect from each of them?
1. Test:
add clocksource=acpi_pm to command line with your current kernel config.
Check,
* Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, now I'm confused.
Could you pls list the full set of tests you want me to run,
and what information to collect from each of them?
1. Test:
I suspect step 0 would be use Linus' latest tree, ontop of -rc4:
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 13:16 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, now I'm confused.
Could you pls list the full set of tests you want me to run,
and what information to collect from each of them?
1. Test:
I suspect step 0 would be use
On 24/03/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:59 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 23/03/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Subject: soft lockup detected on CPU#0
> > >
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:59 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 23/03/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Subject: soft lockup detected on CPU#0
> > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/3/152
> > > Submitter :
Hi,
On 23/03/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Subject: soft lockup detected on CPU#0
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/3/152
> Submitter : Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Handled-By : Thomas Gleixner
Emil,
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 20:22 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Subject: dynticks makes ksoftirqd1 use unreasonable amount of cpu time
> > References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8100
> > Submitter : Emil Karlson
Emil,
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 20:22 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: dynticks makes ksoftirqd1 use unreasonable amount of cpu time
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8100
Submitter : Emil Karlson [EMAIL
Hi,
On 23/03/07, Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: soft lockup detected on CPU#0
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/3/152
Submitter : Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Handled-By : Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:59 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 23/03/07, Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: soft lockup detected on CPU#0
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/3/152
Submitter : Michal
On 24/03/07, Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:59 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 23/03/07, Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: soft lockup detected on CPU#0
References :
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 14:54 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, john stultz wrote:
> >
> > The incorrect clocksource selection is resolved w/ this patch:
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/22/287
> >
> > There is still an issue of why the PIT clocksource hangs, but for the
> >
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 23:43 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 18:23 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >> Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
> > >> References :
Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>
>> For the other issue raised there, clock running too slow, I now
>> realize there is a similar report:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231626
>
> It shouldn't be the same issue:
> 2.6.20-1.2925.fc6 is based in 2.6.20.3-rc1 while this issue is a
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:23:17PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
> >> References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
> >> Submitter : David L <[EMAIL
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 18:23 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
> >> References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
> >> Submitter : David L <[EMAIL
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
>> References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
>> Submitter : David L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Caused-By : Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, john stultz wrote:
>
> The incorrect clocksource selection is resolved w/ this patch:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/22/287
>
> There is still an issue of why the PIT clocksource hangs, but for the
> moment the issue its worked-around.
Hmm.. I haven't seen it until now. Is
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This email lists some known regressions in Linus' tree compared to 2.6.20.
>
> If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one
> of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch
> of you caused a
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Subject: soft lockup detected on CPU#0
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/3/152
> Submitter : Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Handled-By : Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Subject: Dynticks and High resolution Timer hanging the system
> workaround: clocksource=acpi_pm
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/7/504
> Submitter : Stephane Casset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Caused-By : Thomas
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This email lists some known regressions in Linus' tree compared to 2.6.20.
>
> If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one
> of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch
> of you caused a
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Subject: dynticks makes ksoftirqd1 use unreasonable amount of cpu time
> References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8100
> Submitter : Emil Karlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Handled-By : Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:15:38PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
> > References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
> > Submitter : David L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Caused-By
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 20:15 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
> > References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
> > Submitter : David L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Caused-By :
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
> References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
> Submitter : David L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Caused-By : Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> commit
This email lists some known regressions in Linus' tree compared to 2.6.20.
If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one
of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch
of you caused a breakage or I'm considering you in any other way
possibly
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
Submitter : David L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 20:15 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
Submitter : David L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : Thomas Gleixner
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: dynticks makes ksoftirqd1 use unreasonable amount of cpu time
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8100
Submitter : Emil Karlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Handled-By : Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status :
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:15:38PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
Submitter : David L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : Thomas
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
This email lists some known regressions in Linus' tree compared to 2.6.20.
If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one
of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch
of you caused a
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: Dynticks and High resolution Timer hanging the system
workaround: clocksource=acpi_pm
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/7/504
Submitter : Stephane Casset [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : Thomas Gleixner
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: soft lockup detected on CPU#0
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/3/152
Submitter : Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Handled-By : Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
This email lists some known regressions in Linus' tree compared to 2.6.20.
If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one
of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch
of you caused a
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, john stultz wrote:
The incorrect clocksource selection is resolved w/ this patch:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/22/287
There is still an issue of why the PIT clocksource hangs, but for the
moment the issue its worked-around.
Hmm.. I haven't seen it until now. Is it
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
Submitter : David L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 18:23 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
Submitter : David L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:23:17PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8027
Submitter : David L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adrian Bunk wrote:
For the other issue raised there, clock running too slow, I now
realize there is a similar report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231626
It shouldn't be the same issue:
2.6.20-1.2925.fc6 is based in 2.6.20.3-rc1 while this issue is a
2.6.21-rc
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 23:43 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 18:23 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Subject: gettimeofday increments too slowly
References :
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 14:54 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, john stultz wrote:
The incorrect clocksource selection is resolved w/ this patch:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/22/287
There is still an issue of why the PIT clocksource hangs, but for the
moment the issue
This email lists some known regressions in Linus' tree compared to 2.6.20.
If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one
of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch
of you caused a breakage or I'm considering you in any other way
possibly
60 matches
Mail list logo
