From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264369AbTLBVSY (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:18:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264374AbTLBVSY (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:18:24 -0500 Received: from mxsf08.cluster1.charter.net ([209.225.28.208]:44555 "EHLO mxsf08.cluster1.charter.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264369AbTLBVSU (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:18:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:12:56 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NForce2 pseudoscience stability testing (2.6.0-test11) Message-ID: <20031202211256.GB28090@forming> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200311281646.40171.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Editor: GNU Emacs 21.1 X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 2.6.0-test11-Jm i686 X-Uptime: 15:17:16 up 1 day, 6:56, 3 users, load average: 1.25, 1.07, 1.02 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Josh McKinney Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To me the strangest thing is that when I first got this board a month or so ago it would hang with APIC or LAPIC enabled. Now it works fine without disabling APIC. All I did was update the BIOS and use it for a while with APIC disabled. 2.6.0-test9-mm through 2.6.0-test11 all work just fine. Still at the same time some people are reporting that it works, some are reporting that it doesn't. I probably wouldn't think to much of this except I was one of the ones that said APIC causes crashes with IDE load, but now it doesn't? On approximately Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:13:46AM +0000, ross.alexander@uk.neceur.com wrote: > Alistair, > > I upgraded the BIOS about a week ago to 1007. I personally found it to be > less > stable than 1006. I don't believe it is a problem with my hardware > combination > since it has been stable for long periods of time. I was running the SMP > kernel > simply because I (wrongly) presumed a) you needed it to get the IO-APIC > working, > and b) it didn't do any harm. > > It is clear that the UP kernel is considerable more stable than the SMP > kernel. This > is a very useful fact since it suggests that it is not a problem with the > IDE device > driver per se. The whole purpose of my testing is to try to determine > which options > increased the stability and hence highlight where the problem could be. > > One of the reasons I don't like ACPI is the huge amount of additional > complexity > it adds and the amount of stuff it could screw up. Now I have not heard > that any > of the VIA KTxxx based motherboards have any problems. If this is true > then the > problem does not lie with the LAPIC, since that is in the processor, not > the MB. > The fact that it seems to only occur with the NForce2 chipset means it > could > well be some interrupt coming into the LAPIC from Interrupt Bus. However > I certainly don't claim to be an expert on this so I could well be talking > complete > crap. > > Conclusion: More testing required. > > Cheers, > > Ross > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ross Alexander "We demand clearly defined > MIS - NEC Europe Limited boundaries of uncertainty and > Work ph: +44 20 8752 3394 doubt." > > > > > Alistair John Strachan > 28/11/2003 04:46 p.m. > > To: ross.alexander@uk.neceur.com, "Brendan Howes" > > cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: NForce2 pseudoscience stability testing > (2.6.0-test11) > > > On Friday 28 November 2003 15:13, ross.alexander@uk.neceur.com wrote: > [snip] > > > > The conclusion to this is the problem is in Local APIC with SMP. I'm > not > > saying this is actually true > > only that is what the data suggests. If anybody wants me to try some > > other stuff feel free to suggest > > ideas. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ross > > > > It's evidently a configuration problem, albeit BIOS, mainboard revision, > memory quality, etc. because I and many others like me are able to run > Linux > 2.4/2.6 with all the options you tested and still achieve absolute > stability, > on the nForce 2 platform. > > My system is an EPOX 8RDA+, with an Athlon 2500+ (Barton) overclocked to > 2.2Ghz, and 2x256MB TwinMOS PC3200 dimms. FSB is at 400Mhz, and the ram > timings are 4,2,2,2. One might expect such a configuration to be unstable, > > but it is not. > > I'm currently running 2.6.0-test10-mm1 with full ACPI (+ routing), APIC > and > local APIC, no preempt, UP, and everything has been rock-solid, despite > the > machine being under constant 100% CPU load and fairly active IO load. > > Also, many others have found that just disabling local apic (and the MPS > setting in the BIOS) as well as ACPI solves their problem, so I'm > skeptical > that SMP really causes *nForce 2 specific* instability. > > -- > Cheers, > Alistair. > > personal: alistair()devzero!co!uk > university: s0348365()sms!ed!ac!uk > student: CS/AI Undergraduate > contact: 7/10 Darroch Court, > University of Edinburgh. > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Josh McKinney | Webmaster: http://joshandangie.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | They that can give up essential liberty Linux, the choice -o) | to obtain a little temporary safety deserve of the GNU generation /\ | neither liberty or safety. _\_v | -Benjamin Franklin