2.6.20rc5 k8/acpi regression ( 2.6.17.13 works fine ).
hi,
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.
BR,
pawel.
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.htmlLen Brown
reviewerQuoted 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
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=nin the kernel, do you see the same problem?
looks like not related to config_cpu_freq.
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
for more details see PR 7889 at kernel bugzilla.
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