Re: 3.10.5: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks

Hi, On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 03:25:23AM +0100, Jochen Striepe wrote: > Applies, compiles, and runs smoothly on top of 3.12.6. I'll send word > if anything odd shows up. Tested with various loads, everything nice and working so far. Have a nice weekend, Jochen. -- To unsubscrib

Re: 3.10.5: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks

Hi! On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 02:40:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > rcu: Kick CPU halfway to RCU CPU stall warning [...] > And you are quite right, there is a prerequisite commit. I have attached > both, please apply in numeric order. Applies, compiles, and runs smoothly on t

Re: 3.10.5: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks

Hi again, On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 06:54:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 02:58:04PM +0100, Jochen Striepe wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:26:14PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Hmmm... Does the following patch help? > > [

Re: 3.10.5: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks

Hi again, On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:26:14PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Hmmm... Does the following patch help? [...] > rcu: Kick CPU halfway to RCU CPU stall warning The stall didn't appear at all since my last email, running 3.12.x kernels since release. But I will test your patch

Re: 3.10.5: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks

Hello again, On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 01:28:34PM +0200, Jochen Striepe wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:27:51PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > rcu: Reject memory-order-induced stall-warning false positives > > I run this patch on top of 3.10.11 vanilla since We

Re: 3.10.5: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks

patch. [...] > > > rcu: Reject memory-order-induced stall-warning false positives I run this patch on top of 3.10.11 vanilla since Wednesday, so far without any further stalls, on light to heavy loads. Works smooth as pie. Tested-by: Jochen Striepe Have a nice weekend and a big thank you

Re: 3.10.5: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks

Hello, On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:54:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Their stall was due to old-style creation of sysfs entries for memory. > Yours might be having a similar issue with the creation of /dev entries, > so it would be worth trying it. OK, compiling 3.10.11 with your pa

Re: 3.10.5: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks

Hello, On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:27:51PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 11:58:36PM +0200, Jochen Striepe wrote: > > I just got this on 3.10.11 on the same machine. Could that be > > related? > > Several people helped track down another sou

Re: Proposed stable release changes

Hello, just speaking as a user, not a developer. On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 09:37:13AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > First I want to say that I 100% support the idea of waiting at least one > -rc. Maybe even two. I think so, too. But ... > Really, most fixes are for regressions. [...] > I

Re: 3.10.5: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks

Hello, On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:02:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:32:03PM +0200, Jochen Striepe wrote: > > just hit this one. Please tell me if you need any more information. > > If you wait for a few minutes after the first stall warnin

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

Hello, On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 04:28:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > I would suspect that machines that allow unprivileged users would be > running distro kernels, and not the latest release from Linus, and thus > even a bug that "can allow an unprivileged user to crash the kernel" may

Re: Write is not atomic?

Hello, On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:36:15PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > The Linux manual page for write(2) says: > > The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are > performed as an atomic step. This seems out of context. Over here write(2) reads: If t

Re: Drop support for x86-32

Hi, On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 07:22:21PM +0200, wbrana wrote: > On 8/25/12, Jochen Striepe wrote: > > You demand stuff. You offer nothing. You don't listen to the arguments > > people very patiently explain to you. > I replied to (almost) all arguments. You wrote

Re: Drop support for x86-32

Hi, On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 01:52:42PM +0200, wbrana wrote: > On 8/25/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > >> Firefox and Chromium are large applications and can't be fixed by one > >> user. > > > > There are already people there. I doubt they will reject help from > > others > Only experi

Re: [PATCH] fs: Introducing Lanyard Filesystem

Hi again, On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 05:33:52PM +0200, Dan Luedtke wrote: > - What filesystem would you recommend to share that video file? You pointed out you tried ext3, so I thought ext3 was available on your target platforms. I'm sorry I don't understand your reasoning about its shortcom

Re: [PATCH] fs: Introducing Lanyard Filesystem

Hello, On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 03:34:24PM +0200, Dan Luedtke wrote: > tried using ext3, but the ownership information from my workstation > (were the file was copied from) did not match the ones the RaspberryPI > had, since I usually do not synchronize user profiles between > workstations

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Hi, On 03 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > 2.6.x is making good progress but there have been a handful of prominent > regressions which seem to be making people think that the whole process is > bust. I don't believe that this has been proven yet. Sorry -- what you (with the vision of a kern

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Hi, On 02 Mar 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > Maybe I don't understand? Is someone expecting distro > quality/stability from kernel.org kernels? > I don't, but maybe I'm one of those minorities. How do you expect a broad user base testing your kernels if "stable" kernel.org kernels aren't to be

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Hi, On 03 Mar 2005, Martin Schlemmer wrote: [Why don't the rc's get the testing they need?] > The first few -rc's was tested by the more conservative users, but then > things broken on them, and they went "what the hell? Is this a -rc?", > and got the currently standard "sorry for your issues

Re: Kernel release numbering

Hi, On 03 Mar 2005, Massimo Cetra wrote: > So, why moving from 2.6.14 to 2.6.15 when, in 2/4 weeks, i'll have a more > stable 2.6.16 ? > Will users help testing an odd release to have a good even release ? Or will > they consider an even release as important as a -RC release ? From my exper

Re: Linux 2.2.20-pre4

Hi again, On 19 Jun 2001, Jochen Striepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now it stops with OK, this resolved to nothing (my mistake). Now it works fine. Until it reaches ld -m elf_i386 -T /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/vmlinux.lds -e stext arch/i386/kernel/head.o arch

Re: Linux 2.2.20-pre4

Hi, On 19 Jun 2001, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > sched.c:52: conflicting types for `xtime' > > /usr/src/linux/include/linux/sched.h:509: previous declaration of `xtime' > > Stick a volatile in the declaration. Thats a real bug it found Um... I made it extern volatile str

Re: Linux 2.2.20-pre4

Hi, On 19 Jun 2001, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2.2.20pre4 Just to keep you informed... (I think there was a saying that there was interest in experiences with compiling the kernel with non-recommended gcc's ...) I tried the newly released gcc-3.0 compiling 2.2.20pre4 (yes,

AVM Fritz! PCI v2.0

Hello, is there any Linux driver for the AVM Fritz! PCI v2.0 ISDN card available? Using vanilla 2.2.19's HiSax driver doesn't seem to work, and I found nothing at AVM's web page [1]. Did I miss someting? Greetings from Germany, and thanks in advance, Jochen. [1] http://www.avm.de/ --

2.4.4-pre6 does not compile

d0.99 Sh-utils 2.0.11 Modules Loaded nls_utf8 nls_iso8859-15 nls_iso8859-2 nls_iso8859-1 nls_cp852 nls_cp850 nls_cp437 floppy sr_mod sg isofs ne2k-pci 8390 ide-cd cdrom adlib_card opl3 sb sb_lib uart401 sound soundcore lp parport serial TIA, Jochen S

Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML2 1.0.0 release announcement

own slower Hardware, and run Linux on it. They do not want and cannot afford to buy the newest shiny box. And, they have better things to do with their time as well. Please note, I live in a country where people are not _poor_. Just think of others some time, not only of yourself. So long, J

Re: gcc-2.95.3

Hi, On 06 Apr 2001, Jeff Chua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does anybody have bad experience with gcc-2.95.3? > > I'm using gcc-2.95.2 with linux 2.4.3 and have no problem with it. I'm using gcc-2.95.3 for kernel compilation on latest 2.4.x since it's out. Never had any Problem. Lin

Re: [PATCH] modify ver_linux to check e2fsprogs and more.

onfig --version 2>&1 | grep tools | awk \ > 'NR==1{print "Net-tools ", $NF}' > > That should work. I hope. Try it please. This works great for me. Thanks! Greetings from Germany, Jochen Striepe. -- "Gosh that takes me bac

Re: [PATCH] modify ver_linux to check e2fsprogs and more.

NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Greetings from Germany, Jochen Striepe -- The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected. - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972 PGP signature

Re: 2.2.17 wont compile on AMD k6@-550

Hi, On 10 Nov 2000, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > cc: Internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11 http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/ Have fun, Jochen. -- FAQ zur Newsgroup at.linux: PGP signature