On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 10:08:06PM +0200, niclas wrote:
> any idea what is wrong? it's pretty irritating, as i want to start the
> uml on system boot, which can't be done without backgrounding the process.
Just run UML inside a detached screen.
Jeff
Using Tomcat b
hmm, some more info:
after a reboot of the host backgrounding as user "uml" without the
chroot worked:
start-stop-daemon -b --start -d /home/uml/chroot -v -c uml -x linux
mem=128M...
i assume tap0 was somehow messed up, so i tried to run the uml as root
again (with backgrounding) - it works. i t
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 10:13:33PM +0200, Jan Rychter wrote:
> Would it also fix the hangs of the entire UML? I've just had two more of
> those.
Maybe, that is the symptom.
> Let me know if you want me to test something. Otherwise, I'll wait until
> something shows up in the mainline (which might
> "Jeff" == Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 06:11:00PM +0200, Jan Rychter wrote:
>> I didn't capture that... I've been trying to reproduce the problem,
>> but for some reason I can't, even though it happened quite often
>> before.
Jeff> Actually, I just
hi!
i start my UML (2.6.17.3, host 2.6.16.9) with:
start-stop-daemon --start -r /home/uml/chroot -v -c uml -x linux
mem=128M ubda=root_fs ubdb=swap_fs con0=fd:0,fd:1 con=null eth0=tuntap,tap0
which works fine. (tap0 has been configured on the host with tunctl -u
uml before.)
my problem is that
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 06:11:00PM +0200, Jan Rychter wrote:
> I didn't capture that... I've been trying to reproduce the problem, but
> for some reason I can't, even though it happened quite often before.
Actually, I just found and fixed a bug which could cause this.
Unfortunately, the patch is
> > rt_sigreturn(0x722bda19)= 1915476513
> > --- SIGALRM (Alarm clock) @ 0 (0) ---
> > rt_sigreturn(0x722bda19)= 1915476513
> > [... this goes on until there is enough "movement" in another TTY ...]
>
> But what happens here when there is movement elsewhere?
I didn
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 09:39:09AM +0200, Jan Rychter wrote:
> FWIW, I get lots of these when I suspend my laptop with UML guests
> running.
This is essentially the same thing. UML went for more than 10 seconds
without a timer interrupt when your laptop was suspended, and the soft
lockup code got
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 09:38:05AM +0200, Jan Rychter wrote:
> Since it seems to be a known issue, perhaps it's worth documenting it on
> the web site -- I wouldn't have used hostfs if I knew it could mean
> stale data for UML (the information is probably in there somewhere, but
> I missed it).
OK
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:02:42AM -0400, Samuel Korpi wrote:
> Now when I get the message when trying to halt the
> uml, it just freezes with processor running at 100%. I only can get
> out of this by ending gdb and running 'killall linux'. This didn't
> happen at first, only after I recompiled th
--- On Thu 07/06, Jeff Dike < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>> [42949518.22] BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
> This isn't a crash, exactly - it's the timer complaining that ithasn't been
> called in 10 seconds, which will happen if you have itstopped in gdb.
>
Tr
> "Jeff" == Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:45:34AM -0400, Samuel Korpi wrote:
[...]
>> [42949518.22] BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
Jeff> This isn't a crash, exactly - it's the timer complaining that it
Jeff> hasn't been called in 10 secon
> "Jeff" == Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:20:16PM +0200, Jan Rychter wrote:
>> 1) I mount /home with hostfs using the following line in fstab:
>> none /home hostfs /home,rw 0 0
>>
>> df shows:
>>
>> none 10413255443693385415481253412470784
>> 104
> "Jeff" == Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:20:16PM +0200, Jan Rychter wrote:
>> 1) I mount /home with hostfs using the following line in fstab:
>> none /home hostfs /home,rw 0 0
>>
>> df shows:
>>
>> none 10413255443693385415481253412470784
>> 104
14 matches
Mail list logo
