Djoumé SALVETTI wrote:
'am using a 2.6.7-bk16 kernel here with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y , no problem
detected yet.
I am also using kernel 2.6.7 on iBook rev 2.2 with G3 800 MHz and no
problem at all. :-)
--
Jaume Sabater
http://linuxsilo.net
"Ubi sapientas ibi libertas"
Le mardi 06/22/04 Wes Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> What is the status of preempt on PPC? Is it safe to enable in a mostly stock
> 2.6.7 kernel?
I'am using a 2.6.7-bk16 kernel here with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y , no problem
detected yet.
--
Djoumé SALVETTI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry if this has been asked already, but a quick search of my Debian-PPC
mailing list folder showed that it hadn't been discussed in awhile...
What is the status of preempt on PPC? Is it safe to enable in a mostly stock
2.6.7 kernel? (Well,
> How recent of a 2.6.x kernel does this patch require? I tried applying
> it to a
2.6.5-rc2-ben0 did fine with minimal rejects. Apparently -rc3 is more
tricky. Can you supply a new patch, Ben?
Michael
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
How recent of a 2.6.x kernel does this patch require? I tried applying it to a
Gentoo ppc-development-sources kernel, both versions 2.6.3-benh2 and
2.6.4-pegasos0. I realize it could have failed due to Gentoo modifications to
those kernels, but shou
On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 21:29, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > > What else are you using ? I suspect something like MOL may have troubles
> > > with preempt for example...
> >
> > Not using that regularly. Not sure what's special about my setup, XFS
> > maybe?
> >
> > What about this:
> >
> > -CONFIG_TASK
> > What else are you using ? I suspect something like MOL may have troubles
> > with preempt for example...
>
> Not using that regularly. Not sure what's special about my setup, XFS
> maybe?
>
> What about this:
>
> -CONFIG_TASK_SIZE=0xc000
> +CONFIG_TASK_SIZE=0x8000
Nope, that's what my
On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 20:43, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 03:55, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > Note that I'm not sure how tightly the problems are tied to swap; after
> > > they start, they seem to persist even when swap is no longer used. It's
> > > just the best criterion I'
On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 03:55, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Note that I'm not sure how tightly the problems are tied to swap; after
> > they start, they seem to persist even when swap is no longer used. It's
> > just the best criterion I've been able to identify so far.
>
> Weird. I just can't
> > Note that I'm not sure how tightly the problems are tied to swap; after
> > they start, they seem to persist even when swap is no longer used. It's
> > just the best criterion I've been able to identify so far.
>
> Weird. I just can't reproduce any of your problems, neither on the
> tipb with h
> Note that I'm not sure how tightly the problems are tied to swap; after
> they start, they seem to persist even when swap is no longer used. It's
> just the best criterion I've been able to identify so far.
Weird. I just can't reproduce any of your problems, neither on the
tipb with highmem & l
On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 03:26, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > I appreciate a lot that you're working on this, but unfortunately, this
> > patch doesn't seem to make any difference here. I still get random
> > segfaults, weird behaviour in galeon, ... as soon as I hit swap. How can
> > I provide us
> I appreciate a lot that you're working on this, but unfortunately, this
> patch doesn't seem to make any difference here. I still get random
> segfaults, weird behaviour in galeon, ... as soon as I hit swap. How can
> I provide useful debugging information?
In general, is there a relationship w
> Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 18:48, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> >>
> >> Works fine here on 2.6.5-rc2-ben0 . Including disk suspend.
> >
> > Have you hit swap with it? The problems with preempt usually only
> > started at that point here.
> >
>
> here I hit sw
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:47:20PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Hi !
>
> I've start looking into the various issues of running
> CONFIG_PREEMPT on ppc32. I found some problems, there
> may be more, but here's a first patch that should apply on a
> recent 2.6.x.
BTW, on non-pmac powerpc
On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 09:01, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 17:47, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > I've start looking into the various issues of running CONFIG_PREEMPT
> > on ppc32. I found some problems, there may be more, but here's a first
> > patch that should apply
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 18:48, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>>
>> Works fine here on 2.6.5-rc2-ben0 . Including disk suspend.
>
> Have you hit swap with it? The problems with preempt usually only
> started at that point here.
>
here I hit swap on my iBook2.2,
On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 18:48, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>
> Works fine here on 2.6.5-rc2-ben0 . Including disk suspend.
Have you hit swap with it? The problems with preempt usually only
started at that point here.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Libre so
> > I've start looking into the various issues of running
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT on ppc32. I found some problems, there
> > may be more, but here's a first patch that should apply on a
> > recent 2.6.x.
> >
> > I suggest if you want to try this out that you run with the
> > various kernel debugging opt
On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 04:36, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > > -#define MAX_PROPERTY_LENGTH 4096
> > > +#define MAX_PROPERTY_LENGTH (512 * 1024)
> >
> > It doesn't look like related to preempt, but it actually interests me :)
> > Is it a work in progress ? And most importantly ;), does it enable us to
>
On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 03:09, Colin Leroy wrote:
> Hi Ben!
>
> > + *
> > + * 24/03/2004 - BenH: Bump that limitation to 512k and remove the
> > + *filter for the MacOS drivers as we may now run
> > + *those in a shell
> > */
> > -#define MAX_PROPERTY_LENGTH
> > -#define MAX_PROPERTY_LENGTH 4096
> > +#define MAX_PROPERTY_LENGTH (512 * 1024)
>
> It doesn't look like related to preempt, but it actually interests me :)
> Is it a work in progress ? And most importantly ;), does it enable us to
> reboot a radeon 9200 after sleep ?
That's the plan, I bet. T
Hi Ben!
> + *
> + * 24/03/2004 - BenH: Bump that limitation to 512k and remove the
> + *filter for the MacOS drivers as we may now run
> + *those in a shell
> */
> -#define MAX_PROPERTY_LENGTH 4096
> +#define MAX_PROPERTY_LENGTH (512 * 1024)
It doesn't lo
On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 17:47, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Hi !
>
> I've start looking into the various issues of running
> CONFIG_PREEMPT on ppc32. I found some problems, there
> may be more, but here's a first patch that should apply on a
> recent 2.6.x.
>
> I suggest if you want to try this
Hi !
I've start looking into the various issues of running
CONFIG_PREEMPT on ppc32. I found some problems, there
may be more, but here's a first patch that should apply on a
recent 2.6.x.
I suggest if you want to try this out that you run with the
various kernel debugging options enabled. Report
25 matches
Mail list logo
