On 09/24/2007 09:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (Interestingly, I can't find any of the 3 addresses listed in the 'list_add
> corruption' message anywhere *else* in the netconsole output, and the last
> thing
> we hear from before the kersplat is apparently an RCU callback in a softirq?)
Hmm,
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:06:45 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
> Heh :). The few last before the list corruption BUG (you have to have
> LIST_DEBUG
> enabled) -- but it seems you never reached that phase?
Seems to be somewhat racy - had one attempt that obviously got into some grand
Mongolian
On 09/24/2007 05:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:43:20 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
>> On 09/21/2007 09:38 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> It is rather the other user who adds the page to some other list while bein
> g at
>>> deferred_pages list. Could you try my debug patch
>>>
On 09/24/2007 05:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:43:20 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
On 09/21/2007 09:38 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
It is rather the other user who adds the page to some other list while bein
g at
deferred_pages list. Could you try my debug patch
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:06:45 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
Heh :). The few last before the list corruption BUG (you have to have
LIST_DEBUG
enabled) -- but it seems you never reached that phase?
Seems to be somewhat racy - had one attempt that obviously got into some grand
Mongolian flustercluck,
On 09/24/2007 09:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Interestingly, I can't find any of the 3 addresses listed in the 'list_add
corruption' message anywhere *else* in the netconsole output, and the last
thing
we hear from before the kersplat is apparently an RCU callback in a softirq?)
Hmm,
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:43:20 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
> On 09/21/2007 09:38 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > It is rather the other user who adds the page to some other list while bein
g at
> > deferred_pages list. Could you try my debug patch
> > (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/141)?
>
> or the
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:43:20 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
On 09/21/2007 09:38 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
It is rather the other user who adds the page to some other list while bein
g at
deferred_pages list. Could you try my debug patch
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/141)?
or the whitespace
On 09/21/2007 09:38 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> It is rather the other user who adds the page to some other list while being
> at
> deferred_pages list. Could you try my debug patch
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/141)?
or the whitespace non-damaged version:
On 09/21/2007 09:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:30:04 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
>> On 09/21/2007 07:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> Hmm.. maybe I'm chasing a different bug manifested by the same patch. For
>>> me,
>>> it's been a solid lockup at X startup since
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:30:04 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
> On 09/21/2007 07:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hmm.. maybe I'm chasing a different bug manifested by the same patch. For
> > me,
> > it's been a solid lockup at X startup since -rc3-mm1, and this patch doesn't
> > change matters.
>
>
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:30:04 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
> On 09/21/2007 07:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:06:05 CDT, Matt Mackall said:
> >> 2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
> >> -rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks
On 09/21/2007 07:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:06:05 CDT, Matt Mackall said:
>> 2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
>> -rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks about
>> once every four hours
>>
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:44:41 +0200, Andi Kleen said:
> Full bisect needed then I guess. Ok as a short cut you could perhaps
> the cpa-* patches first (might need to drop some later depending
> patches), then the drm and agp trees.
The later depending patches:
x86_64-mm-cpa-clflush.patch
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:06:05 CDT, Matt Mackall said:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:42:29AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > I've attached a more complicated patch that does a 2 stage effort to
> > unmapping and freeing pages. My kernel no longer hangs with this
> > patch...
> >
> > Jiri can you
On 09/21/2007 01:31 AM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> It's broken for me.
>>>
>>> 2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
>>> -rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks about
>>>
On 09/21/2007 01:31 AM, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
It's broken for me.
2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
-rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks about
once every four
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:06:05 CDT, Matt Mackall said:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:42:29AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
I've attached a more complicated patch that does a 2 stage effort to
unmapping and freeing pages. My kernel no longer hangs with this
patch...
Jiri can you confirm?
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:44:41 +0200, Andi Kleen said:
Full bisect needed then I guess. Ok as a short cut you could perhaps
the cpa-* patches first (might need to drop some later depending
patches), then the drm and agp trees.
The later depending patches:
x86_64-mm-cpa-clflush.patch
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:30:04 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
On 09/21/2007 07:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:06:05 CDT, Matt Mackall said:
2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
-rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks about
On 09/21/2007 07:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:06:05 CDT, Matt Mackall said:
2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
-rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks about
once every four hours
-rc6-mm1:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:30:04 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
On 09/21/2007 07:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm.. maybe I'm chasing a different bug manifested by the same patch. For
me,
it's been a solid lockup at X startup since -rc3-mm1, and this patch doesn't
change matters.
This patch
On 09/21/2007 09:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:30:04 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
On 09/21/2007 07:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm.. maybe I'm chasing a different bug manifested by the same patch. For
me,
it's been a solid lockup at X startup since -rc3-mm1, and
On 09/21/2007 09:38 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
It is rather the other user who adds the page to some other list while being
at
deferred_pages list. Could you try my debug patch
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/141)?
or the whitespace non-damaged version:
On 2007.09.21 00:10:26 +, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > Could you try current xf86-video-intel driver? just do
> > git clone git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel
>
> It works!
yep, I also pushed a fix for G33 in xf86-video-intel when fixing the intel agp.
So for G33 user,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 06:31:14PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > It's broken for me.
> > >
> > > 2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
> > > -rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It's broken for me.
> >
> > 2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
> > -rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks about
> > once every four hours
> > -rc6-mm1: solid
> It's broken for me.
>
> 2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
> -rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks about
> once every four hours
> -rc6-mm1: solid lock on X startup
>+your patch: screen goes black, turns off and on
> > But now I'm talking about another issue -- a regression since rc4-mm1,
> > where X
> > server is unable to bind agp memory (those x logs above). The clflush issue
> > has
> > solved andi in
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/334
> > recently
>
> Tried that, my laptop still bricks the instant
On 09/20/2007 11:24 AM, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> On 2007.09.20 17:33:45 +, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>> Maybe you are rather interested in these dmesg lines:
>>> Linux agpgart interface v0.102
>>> agpgart: suspend/resume problematic: resume with 3D/DRI active may lockup
>>> X.Org
>>> on some
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:42:29AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > The code is broken anyways. If you free pages without flushing
> > them first some other innocent user allocating them will end up
> > with possible uncached pages for some time.
> >
> > Does this simple patch help?
> >
>
> I've
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:47:41 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
> On 09/19/2007 10:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > That would probably have been me, saying that x86_64-mm-cpa-clflush.patch
> > broke
> > the NVidia graphics driver in 23-rc3-mm1. Is it breaking *other* X drivers
> > as
> > well?
>
>
On 2007.09.20 17:33:45 +, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > Maybe you are rather interested in these dmesg lines:
> > Linux agpgart interface v0.102
> > agpgart: suspend/resume problematic: resume with 3D/DRI active may lockup
> > X.Org
> > on some chipset/BIOS combos (see DEBUG_AGP_PM in intel-agp.c)
>
> >> Fatal server error:
> >> Couldn't bind memory for front buffer
> >>
> >> I thought I'd seen a thread about this issue, but I can't find it now. Is
> >> it
> >> known or am I seeing ghosts yet, Andrew?
> >>
> >
> > Can you send me a complete Xorg log file?
>
> Maybe you are rather interested
On 09/20/2007 03:51 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 9/20/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release).
>>> What do you mean with not run?
>> (II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
On 09/20/2007 04:24 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:42:29 +1000 "Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From 225696d75e7ec0bafbb47b935bd700e3fbeefbde Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:30:41 +1000
>> Subject:
On 09/20/2007 04:24 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:42:29 +1000 Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From 225696d75e7ec0bafbb47b935bd700e3fbeefbde Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:30:41 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] agp: fix
On 09/20/2007 03:51 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 9/20/07, Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release).
What do you mean with not run?
(II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
(II) intel(0):
Fatal server error:
Couldn't bind memory for front buffer
I thought I'd seen a thread about this issue, but I can't find it now. Is
it
known or am I seeing ghosts yet, Andrew?
Can you send me a complete Xorg log file?
Maybe you are rather interested in these dmesg lines:
On 2007.09.20 17:33:45 +, Dave Airlie wrote:
Maybe you are rather interested in these dmesg lines:
Linux agpgart interface v0.102
agpgart: suspend/resume problematic: resume with 3D/DRI active may lockup
X.Org
on some chipset/BIOS combos (see DEBUG_AGP_PM in intel-agp.c)
agpgart:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:47:41 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
On 09/19/2007 10:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would probably have been me, saying that x86_64-mm-cpa-clflush.patch
broke
the NVidia graphics driver in 23-rc3-mm1. Is it breaking *other* X drivers
as
well?
Yes, the issue
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:42:29AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
The code is broken anyways. If you free pages without flushing
them first some other innocent user allocating them will end up
with possible uncached pages for some time.
Does this simple patch help?
I've attached a more
On 09/20/2007 11:24 AM, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
On 2007.09.20 17:33:45 +, Dave Airlie wrote:
Maybe you are rather interested in these dmesg lines:
Linux agpgart interface v0.102
agpgart: suspend/resume problematic: resume with 3D/DRI active may lockup
X.Org
on some chipset/BIOS combos (see
But now I'm talking about another issue -- a regression since rc4-mm1,
where X
server is unable to bind agp memory (those x logs above). The clflush issue
has
solved andi in
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/334
recently
Tried that, my laptop still bricks the instant X starts up and
It's broken for me.
2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
-rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks about
once every four hours
-rc6-mm1: solid lock on X startup
+your patch: screen goes black, turns off and on a few
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
It's broken for me.
2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
-rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks about
once every four hours
-rc6-mm1: solid lock on X
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 06:31:14PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
It's broken for me.
2.6.23-rc3-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown (noticed when upgrading)
-rc4-mm1: solid lock on X shutdown, random solid locks about
On 2007.09.21 00:10:26 +, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Could you try current xf86-video-intel driver? just do
git clone git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel
It works!
yep, I also pushed a fix for G33 in xf86-video-intel when fixing the intel agp.
So for G33 user, you
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:42:29 +1000 "Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From 225696d75e7ec0bafbb47b935bd700e3fbeefbde Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:30:41 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] agp: fix race condition between unmapping and
On 9/20/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release).
> >
> > What do you mean with not run?
>
> (II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
> (II) intel(0): xf86BindGARTMemory: bind
> The code is broken anyways. If you free pages without flushing
> them first some other innocent user allocating them will end up
> with possible uncached pages for some time.
>
> Does this simple patch help?
>
I've attached a more complicated patch that does a 2 stage effort to
unmapping and
On 9/20/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:10:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:59:04 +0200 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > -8<-8<-8<-8<-8<-8<
> > > That means
> > >
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:01:59 +0200
Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/19/2007 09:57 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>> Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this
> >>> release).
> >> What do you mean with not run?
> >
> >
On 09/19/2007 10:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:57:27 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
>> On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release)
> .
>>> What do you mean with not run?
>> (II) intel(0):
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:57:27 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
> On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release)
.
> >
> > What do you mean with not run?
>
> (II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
> (II) intel(0):
On 09/19/2007 09:57 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release).
>> What do you mean with not run?
>
> (II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
> (II) intel(0): xf86BindGARTMemory: bind key 0 at
On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release).
>
> What do you mean with not run?
(II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
(II) intel(0): xf86BindGARTMemory: bind key 0 at 0x005ff000 (pgoffset 1535)
(WW) intel(0):
> Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release).
What do you mean with not run?
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On 09/19/2007 09:24 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:10:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:59:04 +0200 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> -8<-8<-8<-8<-8<-8<
>>> That means
>>> void
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:10:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:59:04 +0200 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -8<-8<-8<-8<-8<-8<
> > That means
> > void agp_generic_destroy_page(void *addr)
> > {
> >
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:59:04 +0200 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -8<-8<-8<-8<-8<-8<
> That means
> void agp_generic_destroy_page(void *addr)
> {
> struct page *page;
>
> if (addr == NULL)
> return;
>
>
On 09/19/2007 01:53 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 09/19/2007 01:43 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 09/18/2007 10:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> - The Vaio hangs when quitting X due to x86_64-mm-cpa-clflush.patch, but
>>> I didn't drop that patch because the iommu patch series depends on it.
>> No
On 09/19/2007 01:43 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 09/18/2007 10:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> - The Vaio hangs when quitting X due to x86_64-mm-cpa-clflush.patch, but
>> I didn't drop that patch because the iommu patch series depends on it.
>
> No matter whether slub/slab is selected someone gets
On 09/19/2007 01:43 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 09/18/2007 10:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
- The Vaio hangs when quitting X due to x86_64-mm-cpa-clflush.patch, but
I didn't drop that patch because the iommu patch series depends on it.
No matter whether slub/slab is selected someone gets a page
On 09/19/2007 01:53 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 09/19/2007 01:43 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 09/18/2007 10:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
- The Vaio hangs when quitting X due to x86_64-mm-cpa-clflush.patch, but
I didn't drop that patch because the iommu patch series depends on it.
No matter whether
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:59:04 +0200 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-8-8-8-8-8-8
That means
void agp_generic_destroy_page(void *addr)
{
struct page *page;
if (addr == NULL)
return;
page =
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:10:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:59:04 +0200 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-8-8-8-8-8-8
That means
void agp_generic_destroy_page(void *addr)
{
struct page *page;
On 09/19/2007 09:24 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:10:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:59:04 +0200 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-8-8-8-8-8-8
That means
void agp_generic_destroy_page(void
Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release).
What do you mean with not run?
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release).
What do you mean with not run?
(II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
(II) intel(0): xf86BindGARTMemory: bind key 0 at 0x005ff000 (pgoffset 1535)
(WW) intel(0):
On 09/19/2007 09:57 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release).
What do you mean with not run?
(II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
(II) intel(0): xf86BindGARTMemory: bind key 0 at 0x005ff000
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:57:27 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release)
.
What do you mean with not run?
(II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
(II) intel(0): xf86BindGARTMemory: bind key
On 09/19/2007 10:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:57:27 +0200, Jiri Slaby said:
On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release)
.
What do you mean with not run?
(II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:01:59 +0200
Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/19/2007 09:57 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this
release).
What do you mean with not run?
(II) intel(0):
On 9/20/07, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:10:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:59:04 +0200 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-8-8-8-8-8-8
That means
void
The code is broken anyways. If you free pages without flushing
them first some other innocent user allocating them will end up
with possible uncached pages for some time.
Does this simple patch help?
I've attached a more complicated patch that does a 2 stage effort to
unmapping and freeing
On 9/20/07, Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/19/2007 09:54 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Yeah. (But X doesn't run -- this is maybe the known issue in this release).
What do you mean with not run?
(II) intel(0): Initializing HW Cursor
(II) intel(0): xf86BindGARTMemory: bind key 0 at
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:42:29 +1000 Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From 225696d75e7ec0bafbb47b935bd700e3fbeefbde Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:30:41 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] agp: fix race condition between unmapping and freeing pages
78 matches
Mail list logo
