Also thanks to all the others for their reply!
Am Montag, den 10.09.2007, 19:19 -0600 schrieb Robert Hancock:
> Dennis Lubert wrote:
> > Hello list,
> > [105771.581838] [] start_secondary+0x474/0x483
> >
> > Question: Is this a known bug already or should further investigation
> > take place?
>
Also thanks to all the others for their reply!
Am Montag, den 10.09.2007, 19:19 -0600 schrieb Robert Hancock:
Dennis Lubert wrote:
Hello list,
[105771.581838] [806bc5f7] start_secondary+0x474/0x483
Question: Is this a known bug already or should further investigation
take
Dennis Lubert wrote:
Hello list,
we are encountering a few behaviours regarding the ways to get accurate
timer values under Linux that we would call bugs, and where we are
currently stuck in further diagnosing and/or fixing.
Background: We are developing for SMP servers with up to 8 CPUs
Dennis Lubert wrote:
Hello list,
we are encountering a few behaviours regarding the ways to get accurate
timer values under Linux that we would call bugs, and where we are
currently stuck in further diagnosing and/or fixing.
Background: We are developing for SMP servers with up to 8 CPUs
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 20:17:28 +0200 (CEST)
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 9 2007 17:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>
> >> Question: Why are only Intel CPUs considered as stable? Could
> >> there be implemented a more sophisticated heuristic, that actually
> >> does some
On Sep 9 2007 17:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>
>> Question: Why are only Intel CPUs considered as stable? Could there be
>> implemented a more sophisticated heuristic, that actually does some
>> tests for tsc stability?
>
>on AMD multi-socket systems, afaik the tsc is not synchronized between
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:31:45 +0200
Dennis Lubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
>
> [105771.523771] BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1!
> [105771.527869]
> [105771.527871] Call Trace:
> [105771.536079][] _spin_lock+0x9/0xb
> [105771.540294] [] softlockup_tick+0xd2/0xe7
> [105771.544359]
Hello list,
we are encountering a few behaviours regarding the ways to get accurate
timer values under Linux that we would call bugs, and where we are
currently stuck in further diagnosing and/or fixing.
Background: We are developing for SMP servers with up to 8 CPUs (mostly
AMD64) and for
Hello list,
we are encountering a few behaviours regarding the ways to get accurate
timer values under Linux that we would call bugs, and where we are
currently stuck in further diagnosing and/or fixing.
Background: We are developing for SMP servers with up to 8 CPUs (mostly
AMD64) and for
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:31:45 +0200
Dennis Lubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
[105771.523771] BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1!
[105771.527869]
[105771.527871] Call Trace:
[105771.536079] IRQ [802619cc] _spin_lock+0x9/0xb
[105771.540294] [802a6f9d]
On Sep 9 2007 17:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Question: Why are only Intel CPUs considered as stable? Could there be
implemented a more sophisticated heuristic, that actually does some
tests for tsc stability?
on AMD multi-socket systems, afaik the tsc is not synchronized between
packages.
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 20:17:28 +0200 (CEST)
Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 9 2007 17:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Question: Why are only Intel CPUs considered as stable? Could
there be implemented a more sophisticated heuristic, that actually
does some tests for tsc
12 matches
Mail list logo
