tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post8074197138826671099..comments2024-02-29T00:33:07.382-08:00Comments on Alfred Chen's Blog: BMQ 0.96 releaseAlfred Chenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-59977520583691529892019-06-09T23:57:02.933-07:002019-06-09T23:57:02.933-07:00I have pushed the official fix at https://gitlab.c...I have pushed the official fix at https://gitlab.com/alfredchen/linux-bmq/commit/3606d92b4e7dd913f485fb3b5ed6c641dcdeb838<br /><br />Recently, there is no fancy idea to try on BMQ, but code level improvement based on current design. In sanity tests, slight improvement is recorded. Hopefully you can notice this changes.Alfred Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-5405824414372788452019-06-09T09:06:31.712-07:002019-06-09T09:06:31.712-07:00It's caused by the x86 ffs() implementation. T...It's caused by the x86 ffs() implementation. There is a comment for the return value of the function.<br />* Undefined if no bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.<br />Alfred Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-17801238398465533352019-06-09T08:43:30.355-07:002019-06-09T08:43:30.355-07:00I can also only report good news since yesterday. ...I can also only report good news since yesterday. It kept it's good shape: All fine in my use-cases.<br /><br />BTW, CPU utilisation seems to have changed to the better with (fixed) 0.96 vs. 0.95. Less overhead? Maybe a subjective impression only.<br /><br />ManuelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-48234149148612515772019-06-09T07:36:58.239-07:002019-06-09T07:36:58.239-07:00So far so good for me as well with that additional...So far so good for me as well with that additional patch. Thanks.Oleksandr Natalenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12098091624630953604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-6245192263240707102019-06-08T11:59:53.007-07:002019-06-08T11:59:53.007-07:00@Alfred and @Oleksandr:
It, additionally, already ...@Alfred and @Oleksandr:<br />It, additionally, already survived one TuxOnIce (most recent code) hibernation, too.<br />So I'd say it's safe to give BMQ 0.96 a try _with_ the debug patch.<br /><br />Best regards to both of you,<br />ManuelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-21777597194218850512019-06-08T10:21:44.288-07:002019-06-08T10:21:44.288-07:00@Alfred:
Your FIX does work. With my above mention...@Alfred:<br />Your FIX does work. With my above mentioned reprodusction steps, now, all went fine. System is up for only some minutes now, but looks o.k. I hope it keeps this shape for longer...<br /><br />Thank you for your quick work! <br /><br />ManuelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-10460853427383345222019-06-08T08:50:55.986-07:002019-06-08T08:50:55.986-07:00Pls try debug patch https://gitlab.com/alfredchen/...Pls try debug patch https://gitlab.com/alfredchen/bmq/raw/master/5.1/5.1_bmq096_debug.patch upon BMQ 0.96 and see if it helps.Alfred Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-45879347900459610862019-06-08T04:49:49.378-07:002019-06-08T04:49:49.378-07:00I've managed to knock out the VM with my burn_...I've managed to knock out the VM with my burn_scheduler stuff, but even then there's no output through the serial console.Oleksandr Natalenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12098091624630953604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-20985601098295409382019-06-07T14:28:53.780-07:002019-06-07T14:28:53.780-07:00Faced this for the 3rd time, again w/o netconsole ...Faced this for the 3rd time, again w/o netconsole output. I'll leave it burning over night in a VM hoping for a serial console printout.Oleksandr Natalenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12098091624630953604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-47961168074488632262019-06-07T13:43:57.243-07:002019-06-07T13:43:57.243-07:00@Alfred and @Oleksandr:
This was a short trip. Aft...@Alfred and @Oleksandr:<br />This was a short trip. After adding the second commit, problems began to arise:<br />* Eventually not getting through whole kernel + system bootup upto KDE<br />* lockup at compiling virtualbox modules in tty1 after successful bootup<br />(3 = three trials, none working)<br /><br />The commit in question is at least: <br />ff3d9f84 "bmq: Introduce bmq_find_first_bit()/bmq_find_next_bit() macros."<br /><br />Please have a look, TIA and best regards,<br />ManuelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-90668897511849047722019-06-07T12:07:02.601-07:002019-06-07T12:07:02.601-07:00Yeah, o.k. guys, I take the time needed during the...Yeah, o.k. guys, I take the time needed during the coming hours, to do a "pseudo" bisect (only adding/removing the relevant 5 commits) to my local kernel source (lack of disk space again for a "true" bisect) and report back when I see a result.<br /><br />First commit for 096 a6ed4c54 works well atm.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I also got a lockup this afternoon, but with a 5.1.6 with BMQ095 + redone syncup patch applied. Maybe, it's still not as safe as wished.<br /><br />I hope the "gcc (SUSE Linux) 9.1.1 20190527 [gcc-9-branch revision 271644]" is not known for issues!?<br /><br />ManuelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-39016172432369493192019-06-07T11:40:00.065-07:002019-06-07T11:40:00.065-07:00Just got a lockup during usual workflow, but netco...Just got a lockup during usual workflow, but netconsole didn't catch it. Hm ☹.Oleksandr Natalenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12098091624630953604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-50421742568917457092019-06-07T07:36:23.281-07:002019-06-07T07:36:23.281-07:00I can, but the very first boot was the only one, a...I can, but the very first boot was the only one, and after that it boots fine, thus I wrote that I couldn't reproduce it.Oleksandr Natalenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12098091624630953604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-25670555556052868172019-06-07T04:03:41.355-07:002019-06-07T04:03:41.355-07:00@pf If it locks up on very first boot, you can use...@pf If it locks up on very first boot, you can use bisect to test which commit cause the issue. There is just 5 commit from 0.95 to 0.96.Alfred Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-22562767009883765962019-06-07T02:32:05.280-07:002019-06-07T02:32:05.280-07:00So far, no luck with reproducing it ☹. I tried mul...So far, no luck with reproducing it ☹. I tried multiple VM reboots + burn_scheduler stuff w/o any hitch.Oleksandr Natalenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12098091624630953604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-62566821433348872292019-06-06T20:33:45.888-07:002019-06-06T20:33:45.888-07:00em... All commits has been tested for ~2 weeks on ...em... All commits has been tested for ~2 weeks on my machines. So, it has depends on bisect to find out which new commit cause the issue.Alfred Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-55624095658226823592019-06-06T12:51:48.780-07:002019-06-06T12:51:48.780-07:00+1, it locked up on the very first boot for me. No...+1, it locked up on the very first boot for me. Now trying to figure it out on a VM.Oleksandr Natalenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12098091624630953604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-64482808171263861912019-06-06T12:05:45.896-07:002019-06-06T12:05:45.896-07:00@Alfred:
Sorry, for still reporting this here, ple...@Alfred:<br />Sorry, for still reporting this here, please don't mind.<br /><br />Something's wrong with this release:<br />* It hardlocks somewhere in kernel bootup. Sometimes earlier, sometimes later.<br />* Reverting 17f75c37 (the older problematic sync-up commit) may get it further, but hardlocks later, too. E.g. when compiling the virtualbox modules in tty1 after succeeded boot.<br /><br />Maybe someone of you can pin-point this issue to one of the most recent commits, as I don't have time to bisect it atm.<br /><br />TIA and best regards,<br />ManuelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com