Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:55:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:55:14 -0500 Received: from swazi.realnet.co.sz ([196.28.7.2]:4791 "HELO netfinity.realnet.co.sz") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:55:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 08:55:17 +0200 (SAST) From: Zwane Mwaikambo X-X-Sender: To: Cc: Linux Kernel Subject: System errors under heavy load and with kernels > 2.4.0-test3-pre5 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Linux version 2.4.0-test3 (root@a70) (gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 >(release)) #2 Sat Jan 5 22:01:56 CET 2002 I understand that you've tested upto and including 2.4.16 but that kernel oops information is a bit dated. Please reproduce with latest 2.4.18-pre and submit a decoded oops. >Not overclocked. I even tried to lower the speed to 375 MHz, running 75 >MHz bus speed. Although you're not overclocking your CPU, you're actually overclocking most of the busses on your system now... >The problems disappear if I disable the secondary cache, but I guess >that is because the stress on the system decreases and not because it's >faulty. Thats because you were running an overclocked FSB, your L2 runs at a multiple of your FSB. L2 caches are very delicate especially when overclocked. E.g. I have a CPU (C366) which can do 600Mhz stable with the L2 disabled and only 577 with it enabled. But losing your L2 cache slows things _considerably_. Try running memtest86 (I believe it tests caches as well), this definately sounds like hardware problems. Regards, Zwane Mwaikambo - 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/