From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA94D1387FD for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:49:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B44BE0BC6; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:49:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail0131.smtp25.com (mail0131.smtp25.com [75.126.84.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AA9DE0BB5 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ccs.covici.com (d-out-001.smtp25.com [67.228.158.174] (may be forged)) by d-out-001.smtp25.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s5BEn9RD031032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:49:10 -0400 Received: from ccs.covici.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ccs.covici.com (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s5BEn9EQ022894 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:49:09 -0400 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: problem with v86d In-reply-to: References: <5805.1402463655@ccs.covici.com> Comments: In-reply-to James message dated "Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:34:29 -0000." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:49:09 -0400 Message-ID: <22892.1402498149@ccs.covici.com> From: covici@ccs.covici.com X-SpamH-OriginatingIP: 70.109.53.110 X-SpamH-Filter: d-out-001.smtp25.com-s5BEn9RD031032 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: 561e5cc9-ad34-49d6-a2a3-e753a2d00f74 X-Archives-Hash: ce0637473d4ff84bb0d161937096cf63 James wrote: > ccs.covici.com> writes: > > > > Hi. Does anyone have a clue as to why v86d should suddenly start being > > very cpu intensive on my computer? When I first boot its fine (using > > either systemd or openrc), but after a while -- maybe a day or two it > > starts using up lots of cpu and definitely increases the load average > > and slows down things. I notice this has not changed in several years, > > so I am wondering if it is not working as it used to? > > Thanks in advance for any ideas. > > > Ok so the first thing I noticed: > > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~spock/projects/uvesafb/ > You don't have permission to access /~spock/projects/uvesafb/ on this server. > > So you need to drop the (gentoo-dev) a line about where to look at his > sources.... > > Now looking at the flags {debug x86emu} I see: > > > sys-apps/v86d: Use x86emu for Video BIOS calls > > If you've been reading the gentoo user list, you can see > much has changed with frame buffers and video drivers recently > in the kernel. The best place to start reading is posting on > 25/may/2014 by Greg Turner. > > > My best guess is changes in the kernel affect your emulation, > and you'll have much digging to do, if the gentoo -dev that > develops/maintains that code does not "drop a hint" onto your > questions as to "waz sup" with x86emu. > > Are there any notes when you compile it? News? Read the comments > in the ebuild as to new problems? > > good hunting. Thanks. I have a fairly old kernel for other reasons and I installed v86d in 2011 and it has not changed since. I use udesafb because I want a frame buffer so I can get a lot more than 80x25 in a virtual console. Iget 64x160. I also need something which will net the nvidia driver work since this is the card I have. I did try the noveau driver, but it did not give me as large of a screen and nvidia driver did not like that driver. I can't remember what it complained about, but it means no X at all. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com