Hi,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 01:52:53PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On Monday 05 September 2011 18:44:39 Michael Büsch wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:11:43 +0200
Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
I am still wondering how enabling preempt could possibly
workaround/hide an
Hello,
On Sunday 04 September 2011 21:24:45 Philip Prindeville wrote:
On 9/4/11 11:43 AM, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:11:08 -0700
Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
And finally, I'm not really convinced that any of the routers/APs
that OpenWRT
Hello,
On Monday 05 September 2011 18:44:39 Michael Büsch wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:11:43 +0200
Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
I am still wondering how enabling preempt could possibly
workaround/hide an alignment bug. sounds strange to me. Does somebody
have an idea?
On 9/30/11 4:52 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
Hello,
On Sunday 04 September 2011 21:24:45 Philip Prindeville wrote:
On 9/4/11 11:43 AM, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:11:08 -0700
Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
And finally, I'm not really convinced
On Sunday 04 September 2011 22:44:08 Luka Perkov wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:47:46PM +0200, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 01:06:02 +0200
Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
What are you actually trying to fix with enabling preemption? I
didn't really get it by
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 09:58:58 +0200
Florian Fainelli flor...@openwrt.org wrote:
Now this looks better, I am not opposed at all in us exposing such a kernel
configuration option to users through OpenWrt's menuconfig.
I'm completely fine with this as long as it defaults to no-preempt
and that it
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:44:08 +0200
Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
Unhandled kernel unaligned access[#1]:
Cpu 0
$ 0 : 0006 0011
$ 4 : d5bf9da3 80dbb548 0006 c010
$ 8 : c578 6e617332 6e617332
$12 :
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:25 +, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:44:08 +0200
Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
Unhandled kernel unaligned access[#1]:
Cpu 0
$ 0 : 0006 0011
$ 4 : d5bf9da3 80dbb548 0006 c010
$ 8 : c578
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:25 +, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:44:08 +0200
Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
Unhandled kernel unaligned access[#1]:
Cpu 0
$ 0 : 0006 0011
$ 4 : d5bf9da3 80dbb548 0006 c010
$ 8 : c578
On 2011-09-05 3:25 PM, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:44:08 +0200
Luka Perkovopen...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
Unhandled kernel unaligned access[#1]:
Cpu 0
$ 0 : 0006 0011
$ 4 : d5bf9da3 80dbb548 0006 c010
$ 8 : c578 6e617332
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 09:58:58AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On Sunday 04 September 2011 22:44:08 Luka Perkov wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:47:46PM +0200, Michael Büsch wrote:
If you want to debug say so and I'll send you vmlinux file. I'm not going
to debug this further.
Then
On 9/2/11 2:09 PM, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 00:55:54 +0200
Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
Also in linux-2.6.39.4/kernel/Kconfig.preempt you will see for
CONFIG_PREEMPT:
Select this if you are building a kernel for a desktop or
embedded system with
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:11:08 -0700
Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
And finally, I'm not really convinced that any of the routers/APs
that OpenWRT supports have latency requirements in the milliseconds range.
I'd rather say throughput matters a _lot_ more than a
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 01:06:02 +0200
Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
What are you actually trying to fix with enabling preemption? I didn't
really get it by reading your mail.
Kernel oops that I described.
Yeah. And that is completely unacceptable.
CONFIG_PREEMPT must be enabled;
On 9/4/11 11:43 AM, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:11:08 -0700
Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
And finally, I'm not really convinced that any of the routers/APs
that OpenWRT supports have latency requirements in the milliseconds range.
I'd rather say
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:47:46PM +0200, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 01:06:02 +0200
Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
What are you actually trying to fix with enabling preemption? I didn't
really get it by reading your mail.
Kernel oops that I described.
Yeah.
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 11:09:48PM +0200, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 00:55:54 +0200 Luka Perkov wrote:
Also in linux-2.6.39.4/kernel/Kconfig.preempt you will see for
CONFIG_PREEMPT:
Select this if you are building a kernel for a desktop or
embedded system with
Hello,
On Friday 02 September 2011 00:55:54 Luka Perkov wrote:
I also had this issue on my sx763 lantiq based board:
https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/9440
With symbol table I got this oops:
Unhandled kernel unaligned access[#1]:
... bla bla bla (to keep it short) ...
Call Trace:
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2011 00:55:54 Luka Perkov wrote:
Also in linux-2.6.39.4/kernel/Kconfig.preempt you will see for
CONFIG_PREEMPT:
Select this if you are building a kernel for a desktop or
embedded
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:39, Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2011 00:55:54 Luka Perkov wrote:
Also in linux-2.6.39.4/kernel/Kconfig.preempt you will see for
CONFIG_PREEMPT:
Select
On 02.09.2011 12:39, Luka Perkov wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2011 00:55:54 Luka Perkov wrote:
Also in linux-2.6.39.4/kernel/Kconfig.preempt you will see for
CONFIG_PREEMPT:
Select this if you are building a kernel
On Friday 02 September 2011 12:55:08 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:39, Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2011 00:55:54 Luka Perkov wrote:
Also in
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:32:18PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2011 12:55:08 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:39, Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On Friday 02 September
On Friday 02 September 2011 15:10:47 Luka Perkov wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:32:18PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On Friday 02 September 2011 12:55:08 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:39, Luka Perkov open...@lukaperkov.net
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 12:39:38PM +0200, Luka Perkov wrote:
Please look at the kernel config file above. You will see that
CONFIG_PREEMPT should be used on embedded systems...
Doesn't CONFIG_PREEMPT will add userspace scheduling overhead which
in turn harm kernelspace workloads such as packet
25 matches
Mail list logo
