Kok, Auke wrote:
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corp. 82801BA/CA/DB/EB/ER Hub interface to
PCI Bridge (rev 82) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop-
ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B-
Status: Cap- 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B+ ParErr- DEVSEL=fa
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
William Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am using a PCI analyzer and it shows the bus in an idle state after
the lockup. The PCI transactions just prior to the lockup show a
couple of interrupts from the card which appear to be handled
correctly. An
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
William Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am using a PCI analyzer and it shows the bus in an idle state after
the lockup. The PCI transactions just prior to the lockup show a
couple of interrupts from the card which appear to be handled
correctly. An
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
William Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In an earlier post to the list I described a hard lockup condition
that occurs on linux kernels 2.4.22, 2.6.13, and 2.6.17 when using
a 4 port 10/100 fast ethernet card. The lockup is easily repeatable
and occur
Kok, Auke wrote:
William Montgomery wrote:
Thanks for responding. I am very interested to find the source of
this problem.
Kok, Auke wrote:
William Montgomery wrote:
In an earlier post to the list I described a hard lockup condition
that occurs on linux kernels 2.4.22, 2.6.13, and
Thanks for responding. I am very interested to find the source of this
problem.
Kok, Auke wrote:
William Montgomery wrote:
In an earlier post to the list I described a hard lockup condition
that occurs on linux kernels 2.4.22, 2.6.13, and 2.6.17 when using
a 4 port 10/100 fast ethernet
In an earlier post to the list I described a hard lockup condition
that occurs on linux kernels 2.4.22, 2.6.13, and 2.6.17 when using
a 4 port 10/100 fast ethernet card. The lockup is easily repeatable
and occurs on 2 out of 3 computers.
Further testing has revealed that the lockup can be preve
nt see any backtrace info. Any suggestions would be welcome.
Regards,
William Montgomery
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please r
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, safemode wrote:
> this is just a general question about low latency patches on 2.2, I
> remember hearing about low latency patches for 2.4 not playing well with X
> 4.x, is this true for 2.2 low latency patches as well?
>
Not sure. My testing uses XFree86 3.3.6.
Wm
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:38:34AM -0400, William Montgomery wrote:
> > Anyone have any ideas?
>
> Which options did you enabled? In theory the ikd patch could only make
> the latency worse ;), there are no performance impr
I am testing Ingo's lowlatency patch on the 2.2.19 kernel and have
a strange problem. I applied the most recent patch I could find,
lowlatency-2.2.16-A0 and fixed a few failed hunks. The kernel appears
stable after many (~24) hours of stress testing with Benno's latencytest
suite and others.
11 matches
Mail list logo
