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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
