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.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:46:44PM +0100, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> hi,
Hi Paweł,
> 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.
> BR,
> pawel.
cu
Adrian
--
"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
On Wednesday 24 January 2007 17:52, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:46:44PM +0100, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> > 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?
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
On Thursday 25 of January 2007 05:50:45 Len Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 January 2007 17:52, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:46:44PM +0100, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> > > 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?
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...
> 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.
On Thursday 25 of January 2007 05:50:45 Len Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 January 2007 17:52, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:46:44PM +0100, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> 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
for more details see PR 7889 at kernel bugzilla.
Paweł Sikora wrote:
> On Thursday 25 of January 2007 05:50:45 Len Brown wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 24 January 2007 17:52, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:46:44PM +0100, Paweł Sikora wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>> 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
