Le 22/07/2011 12:56, Ralf Baechle DL5RB a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:10:46AM +0200, Bernard, f6bvp wrote:
>
>> Replacement patch applied and install went fine.
>> Nearly 24 hours after running the new "atomic" rose code
>> on two systems, I observe that 'use' parameter is 0, something I
>> never observed before. It used to be positive on some link and
>> rarely
>> displaying a high number meaning underflow negative values.
>>
>>> /proc/net/rose_neigh
>>> addr  callsign  dev  count use mode restart  t0  tf digipeaters
>>> 00020 F6BVP-5   ax0      1   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00019 F6BVP-7   ax0      2   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00018 F6BVP-9   ax2      2   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00017 F3KT-11   ax0      3   0  DTE     yes   0   0
>>> 00016 F8COJ-11  ax0      2   0  DCE     yes   0   0
>>> 00015 F6GGY-9   ax0      3   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00014 F4BWT-11  ax0      4   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00013 F1MVP-5   ax0      2   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00012 F5KBW-9   ax0      6   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00011 IR5AG-13  ax0      2   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00010 K4GBB-9   ax0      4   0  DCE     yes   0   0
>>> 00009 KD4YAL-9  ax0      2   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00008 KP4DJT-9  ax0      3   0  DTE     yes   0   0
>>> 00007 P43L-4    ax0      5   0  DCE     yes   0   0
>>> 00006 VK2XB-2   ax0      2   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00005 VK2TV-2   ax0      2   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00004 VK7HDM-5  ax0      2   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00003 YN1BBS-9  ax0      5   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00002 TI2HAS-9  ax0      5   0  DTE      no   0   0
>>> 00001 RSLOOP-0  ???      1   2  DCE     yes   0   0
>> I guess this is a pretty good thing.
>>
>> I will try removing rose module and report if any progress
>> on that point too.
> Most excellent!  Take  your time for testing - unfortunately we missed
> the v3.0 train already but it would be great if we could backport these
> fixes to -stable after some more positive testing.
>
> Is the system that was having these issues btw. running a preemptable kernel
> or does it have multiple cores or hyperthreading?
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Ralf
On one Linux box system I have a dual core CPU and kernel was compiled 
with Symmetric multi-processing support.
[*] Symmetric multi-processing support
However I am booting kernel with maxcpus=1 in order to keep this test 
system as "simple" as possible.
As I am not sure if that may influence hyperthreading or not I attach 
here info.log file displaying my last boot log.
I did not enabled Hyperthreading
[ ] SMT (Hyperthreading) scheduler support and
(X) No Forced Preemption (Server)
This one shows the new 0 value for use parameter except for RSLOOP-0 as 
shown previously.


On my other Linux box there is an Intel Core 2 CPU and kernel was also 
compiled with SMP support, no SMT hyperthreading,
Multi-core scheduler support enabled and Voluntary Kernel Preemption 
(Desktop) enabled.
This one has no special boot instructions, and thus runs with two CPUs 
enabled
and /proc/net/rose_neigh table also shows use parameter = 0 except for 
RSLOOP-0.


Bernard