Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>
> I'm *not* sure. It just looks like a reasonable explanation. It doesn't
> happen on Intel chips and older VIA chips, it only happens on new VIA
> chips, and the code is the same all the time. Also, it happens both with
> 2.2 and 2.4 kernels ...
>
> --
> Vojtech Pavlik
>
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 02:04:58PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Interesting. If it's caused by SCSI as well (might be), then it's not
> > caused by heavy IDE activity but rather than that it could be heavy
> > BusMastering activity instead (The IDE chip does BM as well).
> >
> > I'm still
On 26 Oct, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:42:31PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>
>> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:20:43PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>> >
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > Have you any idea what is the relation between time and this chip ?
>> > >
>> > >
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:16:34PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > Which part of the chipset you mean? The PIT (programmable interrupt
> > timer)? That one is standard since XT times. The rest of the ISA bridge?
> > Maybe, but that's mostly BIOS work and shouldn't impact the PIT
> > under
Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:58:12PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>
> > > > > So this is not our problem here. Anyway I guess it's time to hunt for
> > > > > i8259 accesses in the kernel that lack the necessary spinlock, even when
> > > > > they'r
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:58:12PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > > > So this is not our problem here. Anyway I guess it's time to hunt for
> > > > i8259 accesses in the kernel that lack the necessary spinlock, even when
> > > > they're not probably the cause of the problem we see here.
>
Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:02:20PM +0200, Martin Mares wrote:
>
> > > So this is not our problem here. Anyway I guess it's time to hunt for
> > > i8259 accesses in the kernel that lack the necessary spinlock, even when
> > > they're not probably the c
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:02:20PM +0200, Martin Mares wrote:
> > So this is not our problem here. Anyway I guess it's time to hunt for
> > i8259 accesses in the kernel that lack the necessary spinlock, even when
> > they're not probably the cause of the problem we see here.
>
> BTW what about t
Hi!
> So this is not our problem here. Anyway I guess it's time to hunt for
> i8259 accesses in the kernel that lack the necessary spinlock, even when
> they're not probably the cause of the problem we see here.
BTW what about trying to modify your work-around code to make it
attempt to read the
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:24:38PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:05:04PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> >
> > > yop, I 've done :
> > >
> > > make -j10 World
> > > in the xfree tree and simulateously :
> >
Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:05:04PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>
> > yop, I 've done :
> >
> > make -j10 World
> > in the xfree tree and simulateously :
> >
> > while true; do make dep && make clean && make bzImage; done
> > in the kernel tr
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:05:04PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> yop, I 've done :
>
> make -j10 World
> in the xfree tree and simulateously :
>
> while true; do make dep && make clean && make bzImage; done
> in the kernel tree
Now it'd be nice to verify that the problem also happens w
Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:11:54PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>
> > > > > > ../drivers/block/ide.c, line 162, on version 2.2.17 does bad things
> > > > > > to the timer. It writes 0 to the control-word for timer 0. This
> > > > > > does the fo
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:11:54PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > > > > ../drivers/block/ide.c, line 162, on version 2.2.17 does bad things
> > > > > to the timer. It writes 0 to the control-word for timer 0. This
> > > > > does the following:
> > > [Snipped...]
> > > >
> > > > Well, at
Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:42:29PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > > > ../drivers/block/ide.c, line 162, on version 2.2.17 does bad things
> > > > to the timer. It writes 0 to the control-word for timer 0. This
> > > > does the following:
> > [
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:42:29PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > > ../drivers/block/ide.c, line 162, on version 2.2.17 does bad things
> > > to the timer. It writes 0 to the control-word for timer 0. This
> > > does the following:
> [Snipped...]
> >
> > Well, at least on 2.4.0-test9, the
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 12:04:21PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > ../drivers/block/ide.c, line 162, on version 2.2.17 does bad things
> > to the timer. It writes 0 to the control-word for timer 0. This
> > does the following:
[Snipped...]
>
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 12:04:21PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> ../drivers/block/ide.c, line 162, on version 2.2.17 does bad things
> to the timer. It writes 0 to the control-word for timer 0. This
> does the following:
>
> o Selects timer 0.
> o Latches the timer.
> o Selects
On 26 Oct 2000, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Snipped...]
../drivers/block/ide.c, line 162, on version 2.2.17 does bad things
to the timer. It writes 0 to the control-word for timer 0. This
does the following:
o Selects timer 0.
o Latches t
Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:42:31PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:20:43PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Have you any idea what is the relation between time and this chip ?
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:42:31PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:20:43PM +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Have you any idea what is the relation between time and this chip ?
> > >
> > > Also, I'm experiencing the problem for sever
21 matches
Mail list logo
