I don't know how TIMINCA is getting cleared to zero. All I know is this situation apparently occurs with VM's. And while I do agree a fix from the VM guys would be necessary, this simple one liner fixes it, because SOMETHING is causing it to get set to/as/reset to zero.
If there's nothing to be done fine, I just thought a simple one line that checks the incvalue BEFORE it panics a kernel would be useful. I provided what I've been able to find and a potential solution to what ailed some of what I've experienced. I don't understand why it's happening, I just know that it IS happening. On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 10:28:48AM -0500, Thomas Elliott wrote: >> task: ffff88003e4b8000 ti: ffff88003e4c0000 task.ti: ffff88003e4c0000 >> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8172817a>] [<ffffffff8172817a>] 0xffffffff8172817a >> RSP: 0000:ffff88003e4c3cf0 EFLAGS: 00010246 >> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff880038cdf640 RCX: 0000000000000000 >> RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffff880038cdf628 >> RBP: ffff880038cdf628 R08: 0000000000000032 R09: 0000000000000000 >> R10: 00000007ffffffff R11: 00000000070f8406 R12: 142fe5b9982e5912 >> R13: ffff880038cdcc38 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000 >> FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88003ea00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 >> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b >> CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 0000000001f74000 CR4: 00000000000006b0 >> Stack: >> ffffffff81071eca ffff880038cdc780 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 >> ffffffff8172ec3c 01a000002252a32c ffff880038cdc780 ffff880038cdcc38 >> 0000000000008000 ffff880038cdcc38 0000000000000003 ffff880038cdc000 >> Call Trace: >> [<ffffffff81071eca>] ? 0xffffffff81071eca > > Are you sure about the which funtion throws this bug? KALLSYMS? > >> A proposed fix is to check if TIMINCA is returned with 0, as division >> by 0 seems to be the reasoning for the panic altogether. > > Divide by zero is indeed a bug, but the question is, why does this > happen? > >> As I understand this isn't a "normal" situation for physical boards, >> it still seems a bit rought to always expect physical boards will >> NEVER return 0 for this situation. > > That register is set to a non-zero value in e1000e_config_hwtstamp, > which is called from e1000_probe via e1000e_reset. So it appears to > be initialized. > >> All this does is check if the value of incvalue is 0 and return systim >> if it is. This means you're not going to run into a situation and is >> just plain, in my opinion, better error checking. A single line of >> code that allows VMs, and possibly future hardware that might present >> this issue, from panicking over something that is so simple a check. > > This is only papering only the problem. We need to know how TIMINCA > is getting cleared to zero. > > Thanks, > Richard -- V/R Thomas G. Elliott 247 Sugar Hill Road Crown Point, NY 12928 Home: 518-907-4327 (Preferred) Cell: 518-335-8682 E-mail: tommygunss...@gmail.com (Preferred) Alt: tho...@mastacontrola.com Alt2: thomas.elli...@mastacontrola.com
