Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:34 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > > Well, this trace also reveals a second bug that can cause nasty priority
> > > inversion: a high-prio domains executes when a fasteoi-IRQ arrives for a
> > > low-prio domain. This will now block all IRQs unt
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:34 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
Well, this trace also reveals a second bug that can cause nasty priority
inversion: a high-prio domains executes when a fasteoi-IRQ arrives for a
low-prio domain. This will now bloc
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:34 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> Well, this trace also reveals a second bug that can cause nasty priority
>>> inversion: a high-prio domains executes when a fasteoi-IRQ arrives for a
>>> low-prio domain. This will now block all IRQs until the low
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 16:06 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 14:42 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:34 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> Well, this trace also reveals a second bu
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 16:06 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 14:42 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:34 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > Well, this trace also reveals a second bug that can cause nasty pr
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 14:42 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:34 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Well, this trace also reveals a second bug that can cause nasty priority
> inversion: a high-prio domains executes when a fas
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 14:42 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:34 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> Well, this trace also reveals a second bug that can cause nasty priority
> >>> inversion: a high-prio domains executes when a fasteoi-IRQ arrives for a
>
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:34 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> Well, this trace also reveals a second bug that can cause nasty priority
>>> inversion: a high-prio domains executes when a fasteoi-IRQ arrives for a
>>> low-prio domain. This will now block all IRQs until the low
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:34 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > Well, this trace also reveals a second bug that can cause nasty priority
> > inversion: a high-prio domains executes when a fasteoi-IRQ arrives for a
> > low-prio domain. This will now block all IRQs until the low-prio domain
> > was abl
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:14 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after a really long search I'm now quite sure to have found the reason
> for the lockups I'm seeing over 2.6.22-i386. I'm yet struggling to
> understand why this issue is not visible over 2.6.19 and .20 for me, but
> maybe it is ju
Hi all,
after a really long search I'm now quite sure to have found the reason
for the lockups I'm seeing over 2.6.22-i386. I'm yet struggling to
understand why this issue is not visible over 2.6.19 and .20 for me, but
maybe it is just far less likely there.
Here is a short write-up of the I-pipe
11 matches
Mail list logo
