everyone is missing the point.
we can figure out precisely which pin it is
But we cannot disable it, because *acpi is supposed to tell us* the purpose of
pins
but acpi isn't telling us this, or we are doing something wrong, which is why
this pin is unmanaged
Knowing what it is, and providing
Hi all,
In terms of finding issues like this, might it be worth adding a dynamic
trace point in this section of code so people could more easily identify
what acpi interrupt is being called so often.
Then the user could make their own patch, or if openBSD decides to
implement a way of
Remco wrote:
> On 1/16/23 03:01, Bradley Latus wrote:
> > Hello Stuart,
> > I noticed that someone else had a similar issue on the openbsd-bugs
> > list..
> > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs=166497715729842=2
> > I was able to apply a patch I found from another user (Joe Miller)
> > which
On 1/16/23 03:01, Bradley Latus wrote:
Hello Stuart,
I noticed that someone else had a similar issue on the openbsd-bugs list..
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs=166497715729842=2
I was able to apply a patch I found from another user (Joe Miller)
which masks out
GPE_L6F messages and the
On 1/15/23 21:01, Bradley Latus wrote:
> Hello Stuart,
>
> I noticed that someone else had a similar issue on the openbsd-bugs list..
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs=166497715729842=2
>
> I was able to apply a patch I found from another user (Joe Miller)
> which masks out
> GPE_L6F messages
Hello Stuart,
I noticed that someone else had a similar issue on the openbsd-bugs list..
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs=166497715729842=2
I was able to apply a patch I found from another user (Joe Miller)
which masks out
GPE_L6F messages and the problem was resolved.
Hello Stuart,
I have tried a snapshot but will give that a go again
Won't be able to try the random disabling of acpi devices until I'm back
hands on with them next week.
Thanks
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023, 15:18 Bradley Latus, wrote:
> Some additional information:
>
> When running iperf3 between
On 2023-01-12, Bradley Latus wrote:
> I have an issue with my new intel NUC that I am trying to use as a PF
> firewall box.
> I have already tried upgrading to the latest BIOS but that does not appear
> to have worked.
>
> Basically when you look at systat all I see 100% usage of 1 core servicing
Some additional information:
When running iperf3 between two of these machines (connected back/back) the
throughput is very low.
PF is running with just the 'default' ruleset on both machines.
# pfctl -s rules
block return all
pass all flags S/SA
block return in on ! lo0 proto tcp from any to
Hello all,
I have an issue with my new intel NUC that I am trying to use as a PF
firewall box.
I have already tried upgrading to the latest BIOS but that does not appear
to have worked.
Basically when you look at systat all I see 100% usage of 1 core servicing
ACPI0, on a completely otherwise
10 matches
Mail list logo
