tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post9007592283829530581..comments2024-02-29T00:33:07.382-08:00Comments on Alfred Chen's Blog: BMQ 0.95 releaseAlfred Chenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-65093109218263835252019-06-03T16:41:03.498-07:002019-06-03T16:41:03.498-07:00It is still the earlier stage of BMQ, so 4ms shoul...It is still the earlier stage of BMQ, so 4ms should be kept to avoid mismatch issues. That's the only reason it is recommended.Alfred Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-74705052473804972022019-06-03T12:18:14.727-07:002019-06-03T12:18:14.727-07:00@Alfred Chen and @ all other BMQ users:
Hi all,
ca...@Alfred Chen and @ all other BMQ users:<br />Hi all,<br />can someone of you test (in-kernel) hibernation thoroughly with BMQ (real use, more than two or three runs)?<br /><br />After resuming from TOI hibernation I again noticed a segfault and very shortly afterwards a complete overload of my 2nd of 2 cores (cpu1), leading to make the desktop (KDE) unusable: Displaying continued, but no input possible, so no logs to reach. This behaviour is the same like I reported for the preliminary BMQ 0.95).<br /><br />Unfortunately, my kernel seemed to have gotten dangerous again, as I use:<br />* BMQ 0.95<br />* "bmq-5.1: re-introduce READ/WRITE_ONCE" from pf (https://gitlab.com/post-factum/pf-kernel/commit/1d9c80521be0f51873ea9de59f65ca380beeb47e)<br />* O3 commit from pf<br />* current 5.1 tuxonice/TOI (made from local diff)<br /><br />Thank you in advance for your ideas,<br />best regards,<br /><br />ManuelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-39717304322460113522019-06-02T21:12:04.331-07:002019-06-02T21:12:04.331-07:00Runs well on 5.1.6 with 3ms time slice, is quite s...Runs well on 5.1.6 with 3ms time slice, is quite strict with usage allocation when it comes to heavy usage. I am compiling for 4ms because current desktop usage is not ideal. What is the reason for 4ms being highly recommended?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-57947776178580142392019-05-27T12:42:33.353-07:002019-05-27T12:42:33.353-07:00Yeah, thank you very much for the rework and respi...Yeah, thank you very much for the rework and respin.<br />The new BMQ 0.95 looks stable ~28h. (The old one led to unclear hardlocks or cpu core overload.)<br /><br />Best regards,<br />ManuelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-86227222056829993352019-05-27T11:24:32.938-07:002019-05-27T11:24:32.938-07:00Runs fine on 7 different machines, thanks.Runs fine on 7 different machines, thanks.Oleksandr Natalenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12098091624630953604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-85364560801665716262019-05-26T01:45:59.948-07:002019-05-26T01:45:59.948-07:00PS, there was a respined before this official rele...PS, there was a respined before this official release. Pls re-pull/fetch the git or all-in-one file if you have used the 0.95 before this blog.Alfred Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.com