Am 11.12.20 um 09:26 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
I tried to reproduce this on another system (ARM64, 256 visible cores
because 2 x ThunderX2, 32 cores/cpu, 4 threads/core) and it also
segfaults.
I tried to reproduce on yet another system (x86_64, 128 visible cores
because 4x Intel Xeon Gold 6130, 16
Am 11.12.20 um 09:09 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
0x00014d04 in svg_ps_bars (interval=,
graph_start=2775.3698308829998, ps_first=0x1000505d0, n_cpus=1,
n_samples=10, head=0x100050770, of=0x1000503f0) at src/svg.c:1187
looking at n_cpus=1,
what's the output of /proc/schedstat?
Am 10.12.20 um 22:12 schrieb Michael Biebl:
Am 10.12.20 um 22:10 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
Hi Michael!
On 12/10/20 8:42 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Testsuite summary for systemd-bootchart 233
Am 10.12.20 um 22:10 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
Hi Michael!
On 12/10/20 8:42 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Testsuite summary for systemd-bootchart 233
Am 10.12.20 um 20:18 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
Hi Michael!
On 12/10/20 7:53 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Unfortunately, I can't reproduce the issue on a porter box (plummer).
So I'm not sure if I can do something about it.
It might be an issue with parallel jobs as Lucas
Control: tags -1 + unreproducible
Hello Lucas
Am 09.12.20 um 09:42 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
Source: systemd-bootchart
Version: 233-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on ppc64el
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201209 ftbfs-bullseye ftbfs-ppc64el
Hi,
During a rebuild of all pack
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:51:59 +0100 Simon McVittie wrote:
> Source: mozjs52
> Version: 52.3.1-4
> Severity: normal
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org
>
> Build-time test suite failures for mozjs52 have been made non-fatal on
> ppc64el because the tests time out. This is clearly a bug,
Am 02.02.2017 um 15:56 schrieb Erwan Prioul:
> On 02/02/2017 02:46 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>
>> Erwan, could you try 232-1 from snapshots.debian.org and see if the
>> problem is reproducible there?
>
> I ran few tests.
> 232-1 is OK, same result for 232-8 and 232-1
14 (current version), and it worked.
>
> Ah, right, that's one of the big differences between a boot to d-i and
> a boot to the installed system… Good catch!
>
>> I'll reassign this to systemd.
>
> An easy suspect would be:
> | commit 7b17f7c824429e
Dear powerpc porters,
it would be great if you could look at
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852811
From a cursory glance it seems that seccomp support is broken on ppc64.
Your input would be appreciated.
Am 27.01.2017 um 16:21 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 27.01.2017 um 15
10 matches
Mail list logo
