Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] I see negative faults
Fillod Stephane wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: >> Fillod Stephane wrote: >>> Attached is an obvious patch (to me). Part of it is across I-Pipe. >>> Is there a reason why the counter was declared signed? >>> >> Well, because the number of faults was not expected to increase >> indefinitely... Is it the PF count we are talking about, on a mpc85xx? > > Indeed. It's a MPC8541E. > > $ cat /proc/xenomai/faults > TRAP CPU0 > 0:4(Data or instruction access) > 1:0(Alignment) > 2:0(Altivec unavailable) > 3:0(Program check exception) > 4:0(Machine check exception) > 5:0(Unknown) > 6:0(Instruction breakpoint) > 7:0(Run mode exception) > 8:0(Single-step exception) > 9:0(Non-recoverable exception) > 10:0(Software emulation) > 11:0(Debug) > 12:0(SPE) > 13:0(Altivec assist) > 14: 3221526824(Cache-locking exception) > 15:0(Kernel FP unavailable) > > Any clue? > Book-E cache locking instructions are still considered as privileged ops by the kernel, so userland gets a SIGILL as a result of issuing them, therefore Xenomai has to switch back the context to secondary mode for this reason. There seems to be something going on at application level. -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] I see negative faults
Philippe Gerum wrote: >Fillod Stephane wrote: >> Attached is an obvious patch (to me). Part of it is across I-Pipe. >> Is there a reason why the counter was declared signed? >> > >Well, because the number of faults was not expected to increase >indefinitely... Is it the PF count we are talking about, on a mpc85xx? Indeed. It's a MPC8541E. $ cat /proc/xenomai/faults TRAP CPU0 0:4(Data or instruction access) 1:0(Alignment) 2:0(Altivec unavailable) 3:0(Program check exception) 4:0(Machine check exception) 5:0(Unknown) 6:0(Instruction breakpoint) 7:0(Run mode exception) 8:0(Single-step exception) 9:0(Non-recoverable exception) 10:0(Software emulation) 11:0(Debug) 12:0(SPE) 13:0(Altivec assist) 14: 3221526824(Cache-locking exception) 15:0(Kernel FP unavailable) Any clue? -- Stephane PS: Happy new year to whoever read this message :-) ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] I see negative faults
Fillod Stephane wrote: > Dear Xeonmai/I-Pipe maintainers, > > Attached is an obvious patch (to me). Part of it is across I-Pipe. > Is there a reason why the counter was declared signed? > Well, because the number of faults was not expected to increase indefinitely... Is it the PF count we are talking about, on a mpc85xx? > > > > ___ > Xenomai-core mailing list > Xenomai-core@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
[Xenomai-core] [PATCH] I see negative faults
Dear Xeonmai/I-Pipe maintainers, Attached is an obvious patch (to me). Part of it is across I-Pipe. Is there a reason why the counter was declared signed? -- Stephane int-faults.patch Description: int-faults.patch ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
