From owner-freebsd-current Fri Nov 15 8:45:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB13637B401; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:45:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1440243E77; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:45:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with SMTP id gAFGjGBF024294; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:45:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:45:16 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: John Baldwin Cc: Wesley Morgan , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Terry Lambert , Vallo Kallaste Subject: Re: DISABLE_PSE & DISABLE_PG_G still needed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > On 15-Nov-2002 Wesley Morgan wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Vallo Kallaste wrote: > > > >> Just finished '-j2 buildworld' and it did well with kernel which had > >> the options enabled. Therefore I suppose that those options are > >> still absolutely necessary to make use of -current system. These > > > > This may be a bit overstated. I removed those options from my kernel a few > > weeks ago and have no problems at all. Are you certain the problem is not > > specific to a particular CPU? > > It only happens with P4's. I haven't seen it locally on a p4 test > machine at work that I have built test releases on. Also, it would be > nice to see if just adding one of the options fixed the problems. As > for NOTES, those options should not be enabled in NOTES as they would > defeat the purpose of LINT since they disable code. Does this apply generally to all P4's, or just a subset? If all, it may be we want to add a P4-workaround to GENERIC so that P4's work better ouf of the box. If it's a select few, I wonder if there's some way to test for the problem early in the boot... One of the recurring themes here has (a) been P4 processors, and (b) been a fear that because of timing changes introduced by the DISABLE_FOO flags, the real bug is still there, but less visible in the tests people are running. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message