Hi! > > > > > > > There's one similar for nouveau in Bugzilla, but it seems like a genuine > > > > > > > memory corruption (1 bit flipped): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84880 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any extra information would be of use :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, Joonas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS. Could you open a bug to Bugzilla, it'll help to collect the > > > > > > > information in one consolidated place: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/documentation/how-report-bugs > > > > > > > > > > > > I prefer email... certainly for bugs that can't be reproduced. > > > > > > > > > > By adding it to the Bugzilla it may be recognized by somebody else > > > > > who is experiencing a similar issue. Internet points are not deducted > > > > > for submitting bugs in good faith, even if they get closed as > > > > > NOTABUG. > > > > > > Well, your documentation suggests you'll deduce my internet points: > > > > > > Before filing the bug, please try to reproduce your issue with the > > > latest kernel. Use the latest drm-tip branch from > > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-tip and build as instructed on our > > > Build Guide. > > > > > > :-) > > > > I'd prefer not to run drm-tip. I'll update to 2.6.20-rc5+ and see if > > it re-appears (but it takes long time to reproduce :-(). > > If we can or can not reproduce the issue with drm-tip, is a very useful > datapoint for us. If we can not reproduce, it'll be possible to bisect > which commit fixed it, and backport that. On the other hand, if it's > still reproducible, we know we're not spending time on something we > already fixed, and the priority gets a bump. bisect ... is not practical on something that takes 2 days to reproduce. > > If you think it is useful, I can try to update my machine to > > linux-next. > > linux-next is closer to drm-tip, so it's better. Do you have some > specific reason for not wanting to run drm-tip (but linux-next is still > ok)? I already have build/update scripts for -next, and I trust -next not to store screenshots of my desktop in my master boot record :-). Anyway, it does happen with -next. This time, chromiums were running, and crash happened minute? after I exited flightgear. It can be seen in the logs. Oh and I might want to mention -- machine was rather deep in swap this time, as in "mouse jumping when starting fgfs" and "could feel the chromium being swapped back in". I might have had this situation before, and just powercycled the machine "because it is so deep in swap that it will not recover". top says: top - 19:18:24 up 2 days, 8:03, 2 users, load average: 3.02, 3.45, 3.21 Tasks: 141 total, 1 running, 86 sleeping, 0 stopped, 2 zombie %Cpu(s): 18.8 us, 7.6 sy, 3.0 ni, 68.4 id, 1.3 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.9 si, 0.0 st KiB Mem: 5967968 total, 663244 used, 5304724 free, 48876 buffers KiB Swap: 1681428 total, 170904 used, 1510524 free. 446280 cached Mem ....but of course that memory is free once everything died. Any ideas? Should I go back to v4.19 to see if it happens there, too? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
delme.gz
Description: application/gzip
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
