On 15 December 2011 13:06, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>> [Me]
It is easy to reproduce with 'time sleep 1' where the timer expires 1, 2
or 3 seconds later.
It seems that does not happen with linux-linaro-3.1 but I was able to
On 8 December 2011 15:23, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On Thu 08 Dec 2011 14:59:02 GMT, Amber Graner wrote:
>>
>> The benefits of becoming a Community Contributor will include:
>>
>> * a Linaro e-mail address
>> * the right to carry Linaro business cards (we supply the artwork,
>> youprint your own card
On 1 December 2011 19:14, David Zinman wrote:
> A request has been received to discontinue Linaro's support for the
> Beagleboard and Beagleboard-xM hardware.
>
> The following conditions will be applied for the 2012.01 release cycle:
> * There will be no more LEB or Linaro Developer builds.
> *
Hi,
Thanks to those who tested the test program I sent out a few weeks ago.
Thanks to dmart for pointing me at the kernel patch that fixes the futex
problem that this test uncovered; see
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-linaro/+bug/884676
Dave
__
On 7 November 2011 16:15, Paul Larson wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:56 AM, David Gilbert
> wrote:
>>
>> Sure; it's the one in comment #1 of :
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-linaro/+bug/884676
>>
>> It's basically
On 7 November 2011 15:07, Paul Larson wrote:
> Hi David, first off, thanks for bringing this forward. We really appreciate
> getting additional tests into lava, especially those that the engineers
> really care about.
> Is this test part of an existing test suite? For instance, ltp? If so, the
On 7 November 2011 09:57, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
> W dniu 04.11.2011 15:35, David Gilbert pisze:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I've got a pthread test that is the fall out of a bug fix which is a
>> good test
>> of kernel and libc and would like to add it into Lava.
>
Hi,
I've got a pthread test that is the fall out of a bug fix which is a good test
of kernel and libc and would like to add it into Lava.
I'm told that I currently have to pick a hardware pack and image - but for
this case what I really want to do is to create a test that can be used
as a regr
Hi,
The attached test intermittently fails on my panda running the 11.09
(3.0.0-1404-linaro-lt-omap) kernel;
but it works on guinep and Michael's ursa and pavo running much older
kernels; I'd appreciate it if
people could try it on whatever machine with whatever kernel they
have and report the
On 28 September 2011 13:19, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/28/2011 12:33 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> On 28 September 2011 11:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Interaction with irqbalancing?
>
> Can you elaborate ? Do
On 28 September 2011 11:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here are some tests to test the cpu hotplug.
>
> Any feedback would be appreciate
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> -- Daniel
>
> Test 3: check the affinity does not work on an online cpu
> ===
On 14 September 2011 13:03, James Westby wrote:
> Getting a bootchart can show very quickly where the problem areas are.
>
> I believe that you just need to install the bootchart package and
> reboot, and the data appear under /var/log/bootchart. If you install the
> pybootchartgui package as we
On 6 September 2011 14:38, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> I have an old kernel patch somewhere that allows userspace to read the
> ID register
> by emulating the relevant MRC in the illegal instruction trap handler.
> Perhaps
> this is something worth reviving. With this approach, interpreting the ID
On 6 September 2011 13:23, Kurt Taylor wrote:
>> > Did you mean this?
>> > https://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12448
>>
>> The recipe in step #1 is probably a good candidate for a FAQ on "How do
>> I tell what features the ARM CPU on my device has?".
>
> Yes, and might be a good topic for
On 2 September 2011 05:35, Anca Emanuel wrote:
> Is there an tutorial to install qemu in ubuntu and run some linaro image ?
>
> I want to test it.
I'm not aware of a tutorial;
You can grab the latest qemu-linaro release from:
https://launchpad.net/qemu-linaro/+download
If you just want to test
On 1 September 2011 10:40, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently trying to get GCC to auto-detect what CPU to optimize for by
> finding out what CPU it's actually running on (the user would only have to
> pass -mcpu=native). It does this simply by reading /proc/cpuinfo.
>
> The problem
On 26 August 2011 15:36, Andy Doan wrote:
> The 11.08 release includes some commonly used pre-built images. This
> mean you can now download a single file and "dd" it to your SD card
> without having to use linaro-media-create.
>
> The images just use the l-m-c defaults. ie, there's no pre-built i
On 4 August 2011 15:28, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> On 4 August 2011 14:56, David Gilbert wrote:
>> On 4 August 2011 14:52, James Tunnicliffe
>> wrote:
>>> I have seen poor performance when DDing to a card, which I assume is
>>> because dd is not writing large
On 4 August 2011 14:52, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> I have seen poor performance when DDing to a card, which I assume is
> because dd is not writing large aligned chunks. If we can dd the first
> meg or so of data onto the card, then write in 4MB chunks that are all
> 4MB aligned that should be qui
On 4 August 2011 12:46, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our current default root file system, ext3, is proving to be a
> bottleneck for SD card performance. Not only does it take a long time
> to format the partitions, but it also takes a long time to write to.
> This slows down creating images
On 27 July 2011 11:48, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> Hi,
> First we have duplication of hardware packs, but not the checksum
> files and GPG signatures to go with them. The hardware packs are
> hardware, not distribution specific, so it is difficult to justify to
> have them in multiple locations. I
On 12 July 2011 13:40, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:10:24PM +0100, David Gilbert wrote:
>> Does it help address rth's concerns though?
>
> Which ones in particular?
Good question - hence my prompt to rth at the bottom; I know he originally
asked why not g
On 12 July 2011 11:43, Dave Martin wrote:
> Just for context, I had a quick play to get a feel for the feasibility of
> implementing this directly, without relying either on a VDSO or on IFUNC.
I originally thought about doing something similar to what you've done
with the indirection; but event
On 11 July 2011 12:30, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:42:27AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Dave Martin writes:
>> > IFUNC doesn't solve the problem because either it gets resolved
>> > lazily (violating the above principle (*)), or we have to force _all_
>> > symbols to res
On 11 July 2011 09:36, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 12:29:01AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 8 July 2011 19:32, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:21:27AM +0100, David Gilbert wro
On 5 July 2011 15:49, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:10 PM, David Gilbert
> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I've just submitted the patches for the 64 bit atomic stuff to the
>> gcc-patches list.
>> Richard Henderson has raised the question of why the AR
Hi All,
I've just submitted the patches for the 64 bit atomic stuff to the
gcc-patches list.
Richard Henderson has raised the question of why the ARM commpage isn't a full
VDSO and, if it was, then it would make the version number check a lot simpler.
What's the history behind this/how big a job
On 29 June 2011 23:40, AJ ONeal wrote:
> The cards are from the same manufacturer, and exactly the same size.
Is the ID of the card as reported by
/sys/class/mmc_host/mmc0/mmc0:0001/manfid and oemid
(adjust path to your SD card interface) the same for the cards that
work and the cards that don't?
On 10 June 2011 20:38, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, David Gilbert wrote:
>
>> On 25 May 2011 04:45, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > FWIW, here's what the kernel part might look like, i.e. for
>> > compatibility
On 25 May 2011 04:45, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> FWIW, here's what the kernel part might look like, i.e. for
> compatibility with pre ARMv6k systems (beware, only compile tested):
Hi Nicolas,
I've just about got a set of gcc backend changes working for the inline case
and plan on attacking lib
On 31 May 2011 15:35, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I think the difficulty here is that glibc expects either the compiler,
> or libgcc to provide the sync primitives; and while GCC can tie the
> inlined copy of the primitive to use of CPUs with the relevant
> instruction, the libgcc version doesn't kn
On 25 May 2011 04:45, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> FWIW, here's what the kernel part might look like, i.e. for
> compatibility with pre ARMv6k systems (beware, only compile tested):
OK, so that makes a eglibc part for that pretty easy.
For things like fetch_and_add (which I can see membase needs)
would
On 20 May 2011 18:27, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 18:10, David Gilbert wrote:
>> On 20 May 2011 17:50, Paul Larson wrote:
>>> The Ubuntu Images have an extra bit that happens on first boot where it
>>> expands itself to consume your entire SD card.
>>
On 20 May 2011 17:50, Paul Larson wrote:
>> I don't quite understand your maths there; if you look at the Ubuntu ARM
>> images
>> they are 540MB for netbook and 200MB for headless (compressed).
>> So at 6 boards to support that's ~4.2GB/month or ~50GB/year which is a lot
>> less scary.
>>
> The U
On 20 May 2011 17:39, Kurt Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Eric Miao wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> When debugging video playback performance issue, we found that pulseaudio is
>> eating up 100% cpu time. Just in case someone else is having the samilar
>> issue,
>> please let know.
>
>
On 20 May 2011 17:12, James Westby wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 16:03:16 +0100, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> We're only doing this once a month, we should just produce images
>> for everything rather than trying to second guess which we can get
>> away with not generating.
>
> While that's a nice s
On 19 May 2011 16:49, Ken Werner wrote:
> On 05/19/2011 12:40 PM, David Rusling wrote:
>>
>> Is this going to end up in a blueprint? This is the last loose end of
>> SMP / atomic memory operations work and I'd like to see it happen
>
> Hi,
>
> Yep, there is one (kind of a skeleton) in place at:
2011/5/6 Christian Robottom Reis :
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 04:08:01PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> Incidentally, this ties into the question sent earlier this week which
>> >> had to do with Nico's work item in:
>> >>
>> >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/linux-linaro/+spec/other-kernel-
On 5 May 2011 18:59, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2011, David Gilbert wrote:
>
>> If people believe it's worth breaking the context-switching taboo and
>> putting a neon version into the kernel then yes I agree it's something
>> you'd want to do as
On 5 May 2011 18:44, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> The relative performance of NEON vs non-NEON seems to depend a lot on
> the size (relative to cache), alignment, and whether or not any
> prefetching (explicit PLD, automatic, or preload engine) is used.
Yes, agreed - Neon does very well in non-aligned
On 5 May 2011 18:17, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> David Gilbert writes:
>
>> On 5 May 2011 16:08, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>> David Gilbert writes:
>>>> Not quite:
>>>> a) Neon memcpy/memset is worse on A9 than non-neon versions (better
>>>>
On 5 May 2011 17:45, Deepak Saxena wrote:
> On May 05 2011, at 16:46, David Gilbert was caught saying:
>> On 5 May 2011 16:08, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> > David Gilbert writes:
>> >> Not quite:
>> >> a) Neon memcpy/memset is worse on A9 than non-n
On 5 May 2011 16:08, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> David Gilbert writes:
>> Not quite:
>> a) Neon memcpy/memset is worse on A9 than non-neon versions (better
>> on A8 typically)
>
> That is not my experience at all. On the contrary, I've seen memcpy
> throughput on
Hi Kiko,
On 5 May 2011 15:21, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> Hey there,
>
> I was asked today in the board meeting about the use of NEON
> routines in the kernel; I said we had looked into this but hadn't done
> it because a) it wasn't conclusively better and b) if better, it would
> need to
I'm curious; do we have any interaction with the autotest project - it
seems it's whole point is automated kernel testing,.
http://autotest.kernel.org/ and test.kernel.org
Dave
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.
On 9 March 2011 19:15, Tom Gall wrote:
> Going deeper it's pretty easy to spot low hanging fruit:
> From fs - Do we need afs, jfs, code, minix, hpfs, xfs, hfs, hfsplus,
> gfs2, reiserfs... I'm thinking no.
> From drivers - net and media make about about 1/3rd of the 28 meg in
> use, I'm sure the
On 10 February 2011 13:14, Mirsad Vojnikovic
wrote:
>
>
> On 10 February 2011 04:30, David Gilbert wrote:
>> OK, there were a few cases I was thinking here:
>> 1) A batch of new machines arrives in the data centre; they are
>> apparently
>> identical - you wa
On 10 February 2011 12:19, Mirsad Vojnikovic
wrote:
That I wrote:
>> I'd like to add as user stories:
>> Dave wants to rerun a test on a particular machine to see if a
>> failure is machine specific.
>
> An initial idea we had was to run jobs based on machine type, i.e.
> BeagleBoard, not on a
On 4 February 2011 21:53, Paul Larson wrote:
>
> Hi Mirsad, I'm looking at the recent edits to
> https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Validation/Specs/ValidationScheduler and
> wanted to start a thread to discuss. Would love to hear thoughts from
> others as well.
>
> We could probably use some more
On 27 January 2011 17:20, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>
>> * libffi/hardfp changes are mostly complete and upstream
>
> These changes are ready to go upstream or they are upstream ? I don;t see any
> patch on libffi-discuss
These are written and I'm waiting for internal sign off to allow me to
post
On 20 January 2011 18:30, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hey
>
> As a followup to IRC conversations around backports, releases and QA
> today, I'd like to hear what others think of our Linaro PPAs. I'll
> start with some history and proposals:
To my mind the important constraint is that there sh
On 7 December 2010 07:34, Robert Fekete wrote:
> Hi Everyone knowing awfully lot about memory management and multicore op,
>
> My name is Robert Fekete and I work in the ST-Ericsson Landing Team.
>
> I have a question regarding multicore SMP aware memory operations libc, and
> I hope you can have
52 matches
Mail list logo
