Skip to contentSkip to conversation

2.6.20rc5 k8/acpi regression ( 2.6.17.13 works fine ).

DISCUSSION Paweł Sikora 4 participants 7 messages Jan 24, 2007 – Jan 29, 2007 ACPI

lore
Share & tools
lore
#1 lore raw
Quoted 1 line · Paweł Sikora

hi,

Hi Paweł,

Quoted 5 lines

for 2.6.20rc5 i get an acpi related oops during x86-64 boot:
http://minus.ds14.agh.edu.pl/~pluto/2.6.20rc5-acpi-oops.jpg
disabling the "amd-k8 cool'n'quiet" option in bios helps. moreover, it works fine for 2.6.17.13, so it looks like a recent regression. i can provide more details if you need.

thanks for your report.

Can you narrow down a bit when it started?
Is 2.6.19 OK?
Is 2.6.18 OK?

I've Cc'ed the ACPI maintainers that might have some clues.

Quoted 2 lines

BR,
pawel.

cu
Adrian

Signature · 9 lines
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
reviewer
#2 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · Adrian Bunk
Quoted 5 lines · PaweÅ‚ Sikora

for 2.6.20rc5 i get an acpi related oops during x86-64 boot:
http://minus.ds14.agh.edu.pl/~pluto/2.6.20rc5-acpi-oops.jpg
disabling the "amd-k8 cool'n'quiet" option in bios helps. moreover, it works fine for 2.6.17.13, so it looks like a recent regression. i can provide more details if you need.

Quoted 5 lines

thanks for your report.

Can you narrow down a bit when it started?
Is 2.6.19 OK?
Is 2.6.18 OK?

Is the stack trace always the same? It doesn't make much sense to me.

if AMD cool & quiet is enabled in the BIOS, but CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=n in the kernel, do you see the same problem?

thanks,
-Len

#3 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · On Thursday 25 of January 2007 05:50:45 Len Brown wrote:
Quoted 7 lines · Adrian Bunk
Quoted 5 lines · PaweÅ‚ Sikora

for 2.6.20rc5 i get an acpi related oops during x86-64 boot:
http://minus.ds14.agh.edu.pl/~pluto/2.6.20rc5-acpi-oops.jpg
disabling the "amd-k8 cool'n'quiet" option in bios helps. moreover, it works fine for 2.6.17.13, so it looks like a recent regression. i can provide more details if you need.

Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines

thanks for your report.

Can you narrow down a bit when it started?
Is 2.6.19 OK?
Is 2.6.18 OK?

ok, here are results of my tests:

M/B: http://www.epox.nl/products/view.php?product_id=421

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
cpu family      : 15
model           : 55
model name      : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+
stepping        : 2
cpu MHz         : 2200.000
cache size      : 1024 KB
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 1
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca 
cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt lm 
3dnowext 3dnow pni lahf_lm
bogomips        : 4423.06
TLB size        : 1024 4K pages
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp

amd-k8 cool'n'quiet enabled in bios.

2.6.17.13-uni, 2.6.17.14-smp, 2.6.18.6-smp and 2.6.20rc5-uni work. 2.6.20rc5-smp ooopses during boot but works if c'n'q is disabled. pure 2.6.19.x not tested yet...

Quoted 4 lines

Is the stack trace always the same? It doesn't make much sense to me.

if AMD cool & quiet is enabled in the BIOS, but CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=n in the kernel, do you see the same problem?

looks like not related to config_cpu_freq.

#5 lore raw
In reply to Len Brown
Quoted 8 lines · On Thursday 25 of January 2007 05:50:45 Len Brown wrote:
Quoted 7 lines · Adrian Bunk
Quoted 5 lines · PaweÅ‚ Sikora

for 2.6.20rc5 i get an acpi related oops during x86-64 boot:
http://minus.ds14.agh.edu.pl/~pluto/2.6.20rc5-acpi-oops.jpg
disabling the "amd-k8 cool'n'quiet" option in bios helps. moreover, it works fine for 2.6.17.13, so it looks like a recent regression. i can provide more details if you need.

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines

thanks for your report.

Can you narrow down a bit when it started?
Is 2.6.19 OK?
Is 2.6.18 OK?

Is the stack trace always the same? It doesn't make much sense to me.

with debug options enabled oops looks better:
http://minus.ds14.agh.edu.pl/~pluto/2.6.20rc5-oops-01.jpg
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

#6 lore raw
Quoted 18 lines · PaweÅ‚ Sikora
Quoted 16 lines · On Thursday 25 of January 2007 05:50:45 Len Brown wrote:
Quoted 14 lines · Adrian Bunk
Quoted 6 lines · PaweÅ‚ Sikora

for 2.6.20rc5 i get an acpi related oops during x86-64 boot:
http://minus.ds14.agh.edu.pl/~pluto/2.6.20rc5-acpi-oops.jpg
disabling the "amd-k8 cool'n'quiet" option in bios helps. moreover, it works fine for 2.6.17.13, so it looks like a recent regression. i can provide more details if you need.

thanks for your report.

Can you narrow down a bit when it started?
Is 2.6.19 OK?
Is 2.6.18 OK?

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines

Is the stack trace always the same? It doesn't make much sense to me.

with debug options enabled oops looks better:
http://minus.ds14.agh.edu.pl/~pluto/2.6.20rc5-oops-01.jpg

In __rmqueue() (mm/page_alloc.c line 619:

static struct page *__rmqueue(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order)

{
        struct free_area * area;
        unsigned int current_order;
        struct page *page;

        for (current_order = order; current_order < MAX_ORDER;
++current_order) {
                area = zone->free_area + current_order;
                if (list_empty(&area->free_list))
                        continue;

                page = list_entry(area->free_list.next, struct page, lru);
                list_del(&page->lru);   <=====================
                rmv_page_order(page);
                area->nr_free--;

page->lru is NULL