Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:02:20PM +0200, Martin Mares wrote:
>
> > > So this is not our problem here. Anyway I guess it's time to hunt for
> > > i8259 accesses in the kernel that lack the necessary spinlock, even when
> > > they're not probably the cause of the problem we see here.
> >
> > BTW what about trying to modify your work-around code to make it
> > attempt to read the timer again? This way we could test whether it was
> > a race condition during timer read or really timer jumping to a bogus
> > value.
>
> Actually if I don't reprogram the timer (and just ignore the value for
> example), the work-around code keeps being called again and again very
> often (between 1x/minute to 100x/second) after the first failure, even
> when the system is idle.
>
> When reprogramming, next failure happens only after stressing the system
> again.
>
> So it's not just a race, the impact of the failure on the chip is
> permanent and stays till it's reprogrammed.
Are you sure there is not an error in the way the
chipset is programmed ?
-- -- Yoann http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ "Programming is a race between programmers, who try and make more and more idiot-proof software, and universe, which produces more and more remarkable idiots. Until now, universe leads the race" -- R. Cook - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:20 EST