On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 14:56 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
[...]
> Any ideas? I think this safely rules out i915 as the cause.
>
> Also, i need to retract my claim that it was running the lenny kernel
> for years until just recently, now that i've inspected the logs from the
> machine more clo
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:38:20 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> > I'm about to try to reboot it again to see if i can get it back to
> > stability under the lenny hypervisor and kernel, but i'll need to do
> > that with the rescue 2.6.32-5-486 image as well, so it's po
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 00:36 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 03/24/2012 12:25 AM, Will Set wrote:
[...]
> >> This is the first i'm hearing that the -486 flavor would cause
> >> instability on highmem machines.
> >>
> >> Can you point me to some documentation so i could understand why that
> >
On 03/24/2012 12:25 AM, Will Set wrote:
Friday, March 23, 2012 11:06 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Will Set
wrote:
I know of 5 bug reports that confirm using boot parameter - processor.nocst=1
as a workaround for kernels < 2.6.38
Thanks, i will try
Friday, March 23, 2012 11:06 PMDaniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Will Set
wrote:
>> I know of 5 bug reports that confirm using boot parameter - processor.nocst=1
>> as a workaround for kernels < 2.6.38
>
>Thanks, i will try this the next time i get a chance t
Will Set wrote:
> I know of 5 bug reports that confirm using boot parameter - processor.nocst=1
> as a workaround for kernels < 2.6.38
> linux-image-2.6.39 through linux-image 3.3.0-rc6-686-pae - on both of my
> 865g based boxes.
Link, for reference: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Will Set
wrote:
> the mobo has an 865g chipset.
Yes, i believe that's correct.
> I know of 5 bug reports that confirm using boot parameter - processor.nocst=1
> as a workaround for kernels < 2.6.38
Thanks, i will try this the next time i get a chance
Friday, March 23, 2012 6:42 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor
>The only kernel boot parameter on this run was console=ttyS0,115200n8 --
>i brought up the rest of the system by hand during this fallback
>attempt.
According to HP,
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11632_ca/11632_ca.html --->
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I'm about to try to reboot it again to see if i can get it back to
> stability under the lenny hypervisor and kernel, but i'll need to do
> that with the rescue 2.6.32-5-486 image as well, so it's possible that
> i'll have another backtrace or crash to follow up with i
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:19:58 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > [ 574.852044] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at b4777dbf
> > [ 574.856011] IP: [] mark_files_ro+0x27/0x6f
> > [ 574.856011] *pde =
> > [ 574.856011] Oops: 0002 [#1]
> > [ 574.85
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> less than 10 minutes after booting to 2.6.32-5-486 on an HP d530 SFF
> workstation (model DG784A) with 4GiB of RAM, i got this kernel BUG and
> then panic:
Thanks.
> [ 574.852044] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at b4777dbf
> [ 574.856011] IP: [] mark_f
Package: linux-image-2.6.32-5-486
Version: 2.6.32-41
less than 10 minutes after booting to 2.6.32-5-486 on an HP d530 SFF
workstation (model DG784A) with 4GiB of RAM, i got this kernel BUG and
then panic:
[ 574.852044] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at b4777dbf
[ 574.856011] IP: [
12 matches
Mail list logo
