Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:33:40 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r199067 - in head/sys: amd64/amd64 i386/i386 Message-ID: <20091111223340.GF2331@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <20091111215651.GM64905@hoeg.nl> References: <7meio5g4yx.wl%kuriyama@s2factory.co.jp> <20091111215651.GM64905@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--IIdFmnBmmFp+Aeao Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:56:51PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote: > Hi, >=20 > * Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > Can you test with these patches? Testing on only one of both system > > is enough. "patch-1" forces disabling CLFLUSH feature even if SS bit > > exists. "patch-2" forces no CLFLUSH tweak. I'd like to know with > > which patch your system can live. >=20 > For some reason they both seem to boot. Yikes. I've done some more > testing and it seems the old version even hangs if I add some additional > printf's above and below, which makes me believe the problem is a bit > more complex than we realize... The only thing I see now is that TUNABLE_INT declaration is not needed, since SYSINIT is started after hammer_time(), so TUNABLE_FETCH is processed after everything is done for BSP. Wait, are your machines SMP ? Hmm, could you, please, remove TUNABLE_INT() and see how it ends up ? --IIdFmnBmmFp+Aeao Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkr7O8QACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jaHwCcC6woSO93ThwmaRa8IA/0KQJK QGoAninWshUhnbCNQUp9q39gjGPoUd3w =8CG0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IIdFmnBmmFp+Aeao--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091111223340.GF2331>