similar to: RE: Timer going backwards and Unable to handle kernel NULLpointer

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61947 Priority: medium Bug ID: 61947 Assignee: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org Summary: nullpointer dereference causes xorg-server segfault when nouveau DRI driver is loaded Severity: critical Classification: Unclassified OS: Linux (All) Reporter:

Hello! I am encountering a problem with one of the machines I am using and the timer going backwards. It looks like the problem is due to to a bad PM-Timer entry being found. Though when debugging further, the real source of the problem stems from an ACPI table of type DSDT being parsed as an FADT during boot and certainly a bogus PM-Timer is found there. Here''s the output from

There is no need to set the same capabilities for each cpu individually. This can be done for all cpus in platform initialization. Cc: Alok Kataria <akataria at vmware.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo at redhat.com> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com> Cc: x86 at kernel.org Cc: virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org

Enable cpufreq support in Xen for AMD Operton processors by: 1) Allowing the PowerNow! driver in dom0 to write to the PowerNow! MSRs. 2) Adding the cpufreq notifier chain to time-xen.c in dom0. On a frequency change, a platform hypercall is performed to scale the frequency multiplier in the hypervisor. 3) Adding a platform hypercall to the hypervisor the scale the frequency multiplier and reset

I''m using a NetBSD 3.1 dom0 with Xen 2.0.7 (so far as I know, the latest supported combination for the NetBSD platform). Linux domUs have their logs fill with messages like this: May 8 02:01:39 debian kernel: Timer ISR: Time went backwards: -316000 131542680000000 9684000 131542690000000 May 8 02:01:39 debian kernel: Timer ISR: Time went backwards: -277000 131542680000000 9723000

Changeset 6902 Sep 18 13:37:23 inyoureyes kernel: 1: 5077390000000 Sep 18 13:37:23 inyoureyes kernel: Timer ISR/1: Time went backwards: delta=-34786504 cpu_delta=15257914 shadow=5076506780929 off=938478409 processed=50770Sep 18 13:37:23 inyoureyes kernel: 0: 5077480044418 Sep 18 13:37:23 inyoureyes kernel: 1: 5077430000000 Sep 18 13:37:23 inyoureyes kernel: Timer ISR/1: Time went backwards:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Alexey Makhalov wrote: > Set pv_time_ops.sched_clock to vmware_sched_clock(). Please do not describe WHAT the patch does, describe why. Describe the problem you are solving. I can see from the patch > + pv_time_ops.sched_clock = vmware_sched_clock; that you set pv_time_ops.sched_clock to vmware_sched_clock(). > It is simplified > version of

I continue to see occasional ''time went backwards'' messages on 3.0-testing on larger systems. Is anyone else seeing such? Have there been any improvements to -unstable that haven''t been moved over? If so, can anyone point out the respective changesets? Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com

Add a way to disable the timer IRQ routing check via a boot option. The VMI timer code uses this to avoid triggering the pester Mingo code, which probes for some very unusual and broken motherboard routings. It fires 100% of the time when using a paravirtual delay mechanism instead of using a realtime delay, since there is no elapsed real time, and the 4 timer IRQs have not yet been delivered.

Add a way to disable the timer IRQ routing check via a boot option. The VMI timer code uses this to avoid triggering the pester Mingo code, which probes for some very unusual and broken motherboard routings. It fires 100% of the time when using a paravirtual delay mechanism instead of using a realtime delay, since there is no elapsed real time, and the 4 timer IRQs have not yet been delivered.

Hello, I could need some help on this one: >From the data.frame "Test.dataset2" below (TSCS data for 151 "countries.to.map" for "year" 1973-95; each "country.to.map" is described by a unique code), I would like to extract a vector "color" that for each "country.to.map" takes on the value of "dv" (a categorical variable with

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 09:52:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, John Stultz wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote: > > > Also, I'm not entirely convinced that this "last" thing is needed at > > > all. John, what's the scenario under which we need it? > > > > So

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 09:52:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, John Stultz wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote: > > > Also, I'm not entirely convinced that this "last" thing is needed at > > > all. John, what's the scenario under which we need it? > > > > So

This is just code refactoring. --- src/launch.c | 172 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 109 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/launch.c b/src/launch.c index 46d7ab9..84d5e82 100644 --- a/src/launch.c +++ b/src/launch.c @@ -293,9 +293,7 @@ guestfs_impl_config (guestfs_h *g, #endif #if defined(__aarch64__) -#define EARLYPRINTK "

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Sep 18, 2018, at 3:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > >> Do we do better if we use signed arithmetic for the whole calculation? > > >> Then a small backwards movement would

Package: src:xen Version: 4.17.0+46-gaaf74a532c-1 Severity: important Two major bugs have shown with the release of new hardware from AMD. Since the new hardware is likely to become common during the life of Debian/bookworm, you may wish to grab them early: ad15a0a8ca2515d8ac58edfc0bc1d3719219cb77 x86/time: prevent overflow with high frequency TSCs Turns out the latest generation is fast enough

> On Sep 18, 2018, at 12:52 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: > >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, John Stultz wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote: >>> Also, I'm not entirely convinced that this "last" thing is needed at >>> all. John, what's the scenario under which we

> On Sep 18, 2018, at 12:52 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: > >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, John Stultz wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote: >>> Also, I'm not entirely convinced that this "last" thing is needed at >>> all. John, what's the scenario under which we

> On Sep 18, 2018, at 3:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Sep 18, 2018, at 12:52 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: >>> >>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, John Stultz wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at

> On Sep 18, 2018, at 3:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Sep 18, 2018, at 12:52 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: >>> >>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, John Stultz wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at