Leif Neland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (kgdb) kernel 1
> Because that command doesn't work for me..
exec-file kernel.1
symbol-file symbols.1
core-file vmcore.1
(where symbols.1 is a copy kernel.debug)
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROT
On 18 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Anyway, here's the backtrace:
>
> root@des /var/crash# gdb -k
...
> This GDB was configured as "i386-unknown-freebsd".
> (kgdb) source ~des/kgdb <-- What's in here?
I guess it is commands to load the crash dump into the debugger.
Could you post it,
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:16:01PM +, David Malone wrote:
> > The graph seems to peak at about 160kB/s, which seems plausable.
> > The code is at:
> >
> > http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwmalone/comp/-time.S
> > http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwmalone/comp/-time.c
> http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dw
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, David Malone wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 02:47:34PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > > npx.c already has one "fix" for the overflow problem. The problem
> > > is may be that clocks don't work early any more.
> >
> > It must be that microtime() doesn't work early any more.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 02:47:34PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > npx.c already has one "fix" for the overflow problem. The problem
> > is may be that clocks don't work early any more.
>
> It must be that microtime() doesn't work early any more.
I did a quick check, and it does seem that i586_bz
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Jake Burkholder wrote:
[bde wrote]
> > Wrong yourself. The fpu is too slow to use for copying for everything
> > except original Pentiums. The bandwidth test is just done to avoid hard-
> > configuring this knowledge.
>
> If this is the case, is there much point in keeping
> On 19 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> > Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > K6-2's aren't really i586's and i586_bzero should never be used for
> > > them (generic bzero is faster),
> >
> > Wrong. I fixed machdep.c to compute and print the bandwidth correctly:
>
> Wrong you
On 19 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 19 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > > Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Wrong. I fixed machdep.c to compute and print the bandwidth correctly:
> > > I mean npx.c. I'll commit
On 19 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Anyway, the bug is not K6-specific - I guess the reason why we're only
> seeing it on K6's is that they're the only 586-class CPUs that are
> fast enough to still be in widespread use.
I have the same panics in one of my pentium 166 mmx boxes. Even som
Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 19 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Wrong. I fixed machdep.c to compute and print the bandwidth correctly:
> > I mean npx.c. I'll commit the fix in a second.
> Please send it to the maintaine
On 19 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Wrong. I fixed machdep.c to compute and print the bandwidth correctly:
>
> I mean npx.c. I'll commit the fix in a second.
Please send it to the maintainer for review.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send m
On 19 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > K6-2's aren't really i586's and i586_bzero should never be used for
> > them (generic bzero is faster),
>
> Wrong. I fixed machdep.c to compute and print the bandwidth correctly:
Wrong yourself. The fpu is
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
> K6-2's aren't really i586's and i586_bzero should never be used for
> them (generic bzero is faster), but there is apparently another
> bug that may cause them to be used. From des's dmesg output:
>
> > i586_bzero() bandwidth = -1980152482 bytes/sec
>
Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wrong. I fixed machdep.c to compute and print the bandwidth correctly:
I mean npx.c. I'll commit the fix in a second.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-curren
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you throw some extra tests in there to make sure m isn't NULL? Also, you
> might want to check VM_PAGE_TO_PHYS(m) for any weird values.
No need - David and Jake already tracked it down to evilness in
i586_bzero().
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMA
Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> K6-2's aren't really i586's and i586_bzero should never be used for
> them (generic bzero is faster),
Wrong. I fixed machdep.c to compute and print the bandwidth correctly:
des@des ~% egrep '(CPU|bzero)' /var/run/dmesg.boot
CPU: AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor (
On 18-Mar-01 Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> I finally caught a backtrace from one of those recurring stack smash
> panics. I've been getting a few of these every day for a couple of
> weeks now but never caught a dump; I caught this one by typing 'panic'
> immediately instead of trying to get a tra
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, David Malone wrote:
> Presumably what is happening is i586_bzero begins and finds that
> PCPU(NPXPROC) is not zero, so it decides to preserve the fpu
> registers. Then something interrupts it, but doesn't restore
> PCPU(NPXPROC). When i586_bzero returns it uses the first 8 by
On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 04:41:03PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> I finally caught a backtrace from one of those recurring stack smash
> panics. I've been getting a few of these every day for a couple of
> weeks now but never caught a dump; I caught this one by typing 'panic'
> immediately in
Verbose boot log as requested.
Copyright (c) 1992-2001 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #63: Sun Mar 18 22:21:49 CET 2001
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Valentin Nechayev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did not reported them yet because of lack of understanding
> what's happen because pmap_zero_page() call is occured in vm_fault()
> without this call in source code ;|
It's called by vm_page_zero_fill() which is inlined and therefore
doesn't show
Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 16:41:03, des (Dag-Erling Smorgrav) wrote about "Interesting
backtrace...":
> I finally caught a backtrace from one of those recurring stack smash
> panics. I've been getting a few of these every day for a couple of
> weeks now but never caught a dump; I caught this one by
On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 04:41:03PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> I finally caught a backtrace from one of those recurring stack smash
> panics. I've been getting a few of these every day for a couple of
> weeks now but never caught a dump; I caught this one by typing 'panic'
> immediately in
23 matches
Mail list logo
