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 wrote:
> > > > I am still wondering how enabling preempt could possibly
> > > > workaround/hide an alignm
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 wrote:
> And finally, I'm not really convinced that any of the r
Hello,
On Monday 05 September 2011 18:44:39 Michael Büsch wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:11:43 +0200
>
> Felix Fietkau wrote:
> > > I am still wondering how enabling preempt could possibly
> > > workaround/hide an alignment bug. sounds strange to me. Does somebody
> > > have an idea?
> > >
> >
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 wrote:
> >>> And finally, I'm not really convinced that any of the routers/APs
> >>> that OpenWRT supports have "late
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:11:43 +0200
Felix Fietkau wrote:
> > I am still wondering how enabling preempt could possibly workaround/hide
> > an alignment bug. sounds strange to me. Does somebody have an idea?
> >
> > I didn't look too closely at the function yet, though.
> Look at "BadVA : 6fbb600f" -
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.
>
On 2011-09-05 3:25 PM, Michael Büsch wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:44:08 +0200
Luka Perkov wrote:
Unhandled kernel unaligned access[#1]:
Cpu 0
$ 0 : 0006 0011
$ 4 : d5bf9da3 80dbb548 0006 c010
$ 8 : c578 6e617332 6e617332
$12 : 000
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:25 +, Michael Büsch wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:44:08 +0200
> Luka Perkov wrote:
> > Unhandled kernel unaligned access[#1]:
> > Cpu 0
> > $ 0 : 0006 0011
> > $ 4 : d5bf9da3 80dbb548 0006 c010
> > $ 8 : c578 6e617
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:25 +, Michael Büsch wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:44:08 +0200
> Luka Perkov wrote:
> > Unhandled kernel unaligned access[#1]:
> > Cpu 0
> > $ 0 : 0006 0011
> > $ 4 : d5bf9da3 80dbb548 0006 c010
> > $ 8 : c578 6e617
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:44:08 +0200
Luka Perkov wrote:
> Unhandled kernel unaligned access[#1]:
> Cpu 0
> $ 0 : 0006 0011
> $ 4 : d5bf9da3 80dbb548 0006 c010
> $ 8 : c578 6e617332 6e617332
> $12 :
> $16 : 6f
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 09:58:58 +0200
Florian Fainelli 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 is not advertises a
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 wrote:
> > > > What are you actually trying to fix with enabling preemption? I
> > > > didn't really get it by reading
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:47:46PM +0200, Michael Büsch wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 01:06:02 +0200
> Luka Perkov 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
On 9/4/11 11:43 AM, Michael Büsch wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:11:08 -0700
> Philip Prindeville 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 _
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 01:06:02 +0200
Luka Perkov 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; don't know what
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:11:08 -0700
Philip Prindeville 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 millisecond of latency
> > f
On 9/2/11 2:09 PM, 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 latency require
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
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 latency requirements in the milliseconds
> range
>
> Bec
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
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
wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 10:46:37AM +0200, F
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 wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > >> On Friday 02 September 2011 00:55:5
On Friday 02 September 2011 12:55:08 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:39, Luka Perkov 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
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 b
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:39, Luka Perkov 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 this if you
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
> > embe
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:
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:
[<80cb8968>] nf_nat_setup_info+0x2e0/0x6e8 [nf_nat]
[<80d1e158>] masquerade_tg+0x
28 matches
Mail list logo
