On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Karsten Wiese wrote:
> i've only tested on 2005ish [EMAIL PROTECTED]: it doesn't need any of the
> quirks
> IOAPIC_POSTFLUSH, sis_bug, level-edge cleanup.
> IOAPIC_POSTFLUSH caused no negative influence neither.
> i've an io_apic_one.c here, that doesn't have any of the
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * K.R. Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is this why I have been able to boot the latest versions without the
> > noapic option (and without noticeable keyboard repeat problems) or has
> > it just been dumb luck?
>
> yes, i think it's related -
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Is there something so odd about the XFS locking, that it can't use the
> rt_lock ?
>
>
> --- linux.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/mrlock.h
> +++ linux/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/mrlock.h
> @@ -37,12 +37,12 @@
> enum { MR_NONE, MR_ACCESS, MR_UPDATE };
>
> typedef
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Daniel Walker wrote:
Is there something so odd about the XFS locking, that it can't use the
rt_lock ?
--- linux.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/mrlock.h
+++ linux/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/mrlock.h
@@ -37,12 +37,12 @@
enum { MR_NONE, MR_ACCESS, MR_UPDATE };
typedef struct {
-
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* K.R. Foley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this why I have been able to boot the latest versions without the
noapic option (and without noticeable keyboard repeat problems) or has
it just been dumb luck?
yes, i think it's related - the IO-APIC
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Karsten Wiese wrote:
i've only tested on 2005ish [EMAIL PROTECTED]: it doesn't need any of the
quirks
IOAPIC_POSTFLUSH, sis_bug, level-edge cleanup.
IOAPIC_POSTFLUSH caused no negative influence neither.
i've an io_apic_one.c here, that doesn't have any of the quirks
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> this patch reduces ip_setsockopt's stack footprint from 572 bytes to 164
> bytes. (Note: needs review and testing as i could not excercise this
> multicast codepath.)
This patch breaks multicast source group joins. Here's the fix:
---
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 17:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > I've also
> > > released the -51-23 patch with these changes included. Does this fix
> > > priority leakage on your SMP system?
> > >
> >
> > -51-24 right? I'll give it a spin.
> >
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 17:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I've also
released the -51-23 patch with these changes included. Does this fix
priority leakage on your SMP system?
-51-24 right? I'll give it a spin.
a quick test
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
this patch reduces ip_setsockopt's stack footprint from 572 bytes to 164
bytes. (Note: needs review and testing as i could not excercise this
multicast codepath.)
This patch breaks multicast source group joins. Here's the fix:
---
Hi Ingo,
More SMT weirdness. Latency traces aren't looking quite right on -51-17
with my SMT debug config.
Started jackd, immediately after boot (before logging in to X), then:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /proc/latency_trace
cat/2149[CPU#1]: BUG in update_out_trace at kernel/latency.c:698
[]
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > ok, you are right, the edge case was mishandled - but i think it was
> > > already mishandled upstream, we just never (or rarely) triggered it.
> > > I've reworked this area based on your patch, could you check -51-15,
> > > does it work for you?
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> could you check whether the priority leakage happens if you disable SMP?
> (if you can reproduce it easily)
No priority leakages have been seen with UP configs on any of the
machines I've been testing.
The leakage is not hard to reproduce under SMT:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
could you check whether the priority leakage happens if you disable SMP?
(if you can reproduce it easily)
No priority leakages have been seen with UP configs on any of the
machines I've been testing.
The leakage is not hard to reproduce under SMT:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
ok, you are right, the edge case was mishandled - but i think it was
already mishandled upstream, we just never (or rarely) triggered it.
I've reworked this area based on your patch, could you check -51-15,
does it work for you?
I figured it
Hi Ingo,
More SMT weirdness. Latency traces aren't looking quite right on -51-17
with my SMT debug config.
Started jackd, immediately after boot (before logging in to X), then:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /proc/latency_trace
cat/2149[CPU#1]: BUG in update_out_trace at kernel/latency.c:698
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Without the last two chunks of this patch, the UP Athlon box locks up
> > hard as soon as jackd is started up.
>
> hm, do you have CONFIG_PCI_MSI enabled by any chance?
I've never enabled CONFIG_PCI_MSI. What's your experience when it comes
to
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> is this inheritance perpetual? It is normal for some tasks to be boosted
> momentarily, but if the condition remains even after jackd has exited,
> it's clearly an anomaly. (lets call it "RT priority leakage".) Priority
> leakage on SMP was fixed
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> do the 51-02 (and later) kernels work on the UP Athlon box?
Hi Ingo,
-51-06 and -51-08 are looking stable on the UP Athlon box with the
following patch which causes edge triggered hardirqs to be masked when
pending _and/or_ disabled (instead of both
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Still looking into this issue on -51-06. Found something really odd:
> > SCHED_NORMAL tasks will start to inherit the priority value of some
> > other SCHED_FIFO task. If JACK is started at a given SCHED_FIFO
> > priority, X and all of its children
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Still looking into this issue on -51-06. Found something really odd:
SCHED_NORMAL tasks will start to inherit the priority value of some
other SCHED_FIFO task. If JACK is started at a given SCHED_FIFO
priority, X and all of its children will
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
do the 51-02 (and later) kernels work on the UP Athlon box?
Hi Ingo,
-51-06 and -51-08 are looking stable on the UP Athlon box with the
following patch which causes edge triggered hardirqs to be masked when
pending _and/or_ disabled (instead of both
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Without the last two chunks of this patch, the UP Athlon box locks up
hard as soon as jackd is started up.
hm, do you have CONFIG_PCI_MSI enabled by any chance?
I've never enabled CONFIG_PCI_MSI. What's your experience when it comes
to stability
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> ok, found a bug that could explain the situation: mutex sleeps+wakeups
> were incorrectly credited as 'interactive sleep' periods, causing the dd
> processes to be boosted incorrectly. The dd processes created a workload
> in which they blocked each
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i have digged out an older HT-box .config of yours and have reproduced
> an assert quite similar to the one above. Found one bug in that area:
> the assert (conditional on RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT) was done a bit too early,
> i have fixed this in my tree and
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
i have digged out an older HT-box .config of yours and have reproduced
an assert quite similar to the one above. Found one bug in that area:
the assert (conditional on RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT) was done a bit too early,
i have fixed this in my tree and have
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
ok, found a bug that could explain the situation: mutex sleeps+wakeups
were incorrectly credited as 'interactive sleep' periods, causing the dd
processes to be boosted incorrectly. The dd processes created a workload
in which they blocked each other
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Carlo Scarfoglio wrote:
> Compilation stops at this point:
>
> make[1]: `arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.s' is up to date.
>CHK include/linux/compile.h
>CHK usr/initramfs_list
>CC net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_proto_tcp.o
>
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> i've uploaded the -50-45 patch, can you under this kernel trigger a
> 'meltdown' on your SMT box?
Hi Ingo,
Here's the results of trying out everything from -50-45 through -51-01 on
the SMT box:
-50-47 looks better. 4x burnP6 + wmcube doesn't bring
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
i've uploaded the -50-45 patch, can you under this kernel trigger a
'meltdown' on your SMT box?
Hi Ingo,
Here's the results of trying out everything from -50-45 through -51-01 on
the SMT box:
-50-47 looks better. 4x burnP6 + wmcube doesn't bring the
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Carlo Scarfoglio wrote:
Compilation stops at this point:
make[1]: `arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.s' is up to date.
CHK include/linux/compile.h
CHK usr/initramfs_list
CC net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_proto_tcp.o
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 18:46 -0700, William Weston wrote:
> > FWIW, I'm still seeing the SMT scheduling? meltdown issues with
> > -50-42.
> > Running two instances of 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=65536'
> > instead
> >
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 18:46 -0700, William Weston wrote:
FWIW, I'm still seeing the SMT scheduling? meltdown issues with
-50-42.
Running two instances of 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=65536'
instead
of 'burnP6' results in the same behavior
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * William Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > what are you using kprobes for? Do you get lockups even if you disable
> > > kprobes?
> >
>
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* William Weston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
what are you using kprobes for? Do you get lockups even if you disable
kprobes?
Various processes will lockup on the P4/HT system, usually while under
ans my console, and thus sysrq, are toast), but I can still
ssh in. Nothing is logged by the kernel. Are there any post-lockup
forensics that can be performed before I reboot?
Regards,
--William Weston
--
/* William Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
, and thus sysrq, are toast), but I can still
ssh in. Nothing is logged by the kernel. Are there any post-lockup
forensics that can be performed before I reboot?
Regards,
--William Weston
--
/* William Weston [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux
t; what are you using kprobes for? Do you get lockups even if you disable
> kprobes?
>
> Ingo
I'm not using kprobes currently. I'll recompile and see if the lockups go
away.
--ww
--
/* William Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line &q
starting somewhere around
2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.43-05 on the P4/HT box. My Athlon box at home is running
fine on the latest -RT kernels.
Please let me know if there's any more debugging I can do.
Regards,
--William Weston
--
/* William Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> */CONFIG_X86=y
CONFIG_MMU=y
.
Please let me know if there's any more debugging I can do.
Regards,
--William Weston
--
/* William Weston [EMAIL PROTECTED] */CONFIG_X86=y
CONFIG_MMU=y
CONFIG_UID16=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_ISA_DMA=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP=y
CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y
CONFIG_CLEAN_COMPILE=y
CONFIG_LOCK_KERNEL=y
disable
kprobes?
Ingo
I'm not using kprobes currently. I'll recompile and see if the lockups go
away.
--ww
--
/* William Weston [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
esting:
.. [] __do_IRQ+0xfb/0x1a0
.[] .. ( <= do_IRQ+0x6f/0xb0)
.. [] print_traces+0x1b/0x60
.[] .. ( <= dump_stack+0x23/0x30)
Additional info about the system/kernel/config can be found at
http://www.sysex.net/testing/
Best Regards,
--William Weston
O
snd_mpu401_uart_output_write(mpu);
> spin_unlock(>output_lock);
> }
> - local_irq_restore(flags);
> + local_irq_restore_nort(flags);
> }
>
-tx_loop);
} else {
This patch does fix the MIDI playback BUG I was seeing.
Best Regards,
--William Weston weston at sysex.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org
://www.sysex.net/testing/
Best Regards,
--William Weston weston at sysex.net
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 16:58, William Weston wrote:
Hi Ingo,
Great work on the -RT kernel! Here's a status report from my Athlon box
w/ kernel -RT-2.6.11-rc3-V0.7.38-03
45 matches
Mail list logo
