This may not be helpful (and the thread is now two days
old), but I just wanted to add that after using Mr.
Torvalds' comment-out-irq13 suggestion and Vojtech
Pavlik's "Possible critical VIA vt82c686a chip bug"
patch (Oct 26), both with 2.4.0-t10, I've successfully
had a 2.4 series uptime >48 hou
=?iso-8859-1?q?Markus=20Schoder?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> --- Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >
[...]
> > Markus, can you make the irq13 test the first thing
> > - don't worry about
> > 3dnow as that seems to not be a deciding factor..
> Ok, that was it! It's IRQ 13. Guess I s
=?iso-8859-1?q?Markus=20Schoder?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> I will also try to compile a non AMD specific kernel
> and see if that makes a difference. If just this 40GB
> drive would fsck faster :)
mount -o remount,ro [...]
--
Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECT
--- Brian Gerst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, that was it! It's IRQ 13. Guess I should
have
> > tried that first. Now everything works perfectly.
> > Thanks everybody.
>
> What motherboard do you have? I can't reproduce
> this on my FIC SD11.
>
> --
>
>
Markus Schoder wrote:
>
> --- Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >
>
> >
> > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, adrian wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > > There's almost certainly more than that. I'd
> > love to have a report on my
> > > > asm-only ve
adrian wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > There's almost certainly more than that. I'd love to have a report on my
> > asm-only version, but even so I suspect it also requires the 3dnow stuff,
>
> I tried all three versions, and no freezes. I forgot to mention the test
--- Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, adrian wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > There's almost certainly more than that. I'd
> love to have a report on my
> > > asm-only version, but even so I suspect it also
> requ
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, adrian wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > There's almost certainly more than that. I'd love to have a report on my
> > asm-only version, but even so I suspect it also requires the 3dnow stuff,
>
> I tried all three versions, and no freezes. I
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Markus Schoder wrote:
>
> Your test program is indeed sufficient to trigger the
> freeze. Unfortunately the patch does not make a
> difference :(
Ok.
This may in fact be an Athlon CPU bug. But before we contact anybody from
AMD, I'd really need to know what the result fr
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> There's almost certainly more than that. I'd love to have a report on my
> asm-only version, but even so I suspect it also requires the 3dnow stuff,
I tried all three versions, and no freezes. I forgot to mention the tests
were run on a model 2 Ath
Markus Schoder wrote:
> My test program caused the exception (and the freeze)
> unintendedly in the return statement since the
> division was optimized away as Brian pointed out.
It's quite strange that I cannot seem to trigger the
problem here on my machine.
> I know of another guy with the ex
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Compiler specific ?
>
> There's almost certainly more than that. I'd love to have a report on my
> asm-only version, but even so I suspect it also requires the 3dnow stuff,
> because I'm not able to trigger anything like this on any machines I have
> access to (none of
--- Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> If I'm right, the proper test-program should be
> something like
>
Your test program is indeed sufficient to trigger the
freeze. Unfortunately the patch does not make a
difference :(
My test program caused the exception (and the freeze)
unin
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > I sure as hell hope this isn't an Athlon issue. Can other people try
> > > the test-program and see if we have a pattern (ie "it happens only on
> > > Athlons", or "Linus is on drugs and it happens for everybody else")
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > I sure as hell hope this isn't an Athlon issue. Can other people try
> > the test-program and see if we have a pattern (ie "it happens only on
> > Athlons", or "Linus is on drugs and it happens for everybody else").
>
> I've tried both variants (fesetenv and inli
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Brian Gerst wrote:
>
> I get Floating Point Exception (core dumped), but I needed to use the
> modified program below to keep GCC from optimizing the division away as
> a constant. This is on test11-pre5.
I'm starting to suspect that it's really a combination of three thi
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Markus=20Schoder?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The following small program (linked against glibc 2.1.3) reliably
> >freezes my system (Athlon Thunderbird CPU) with at least kernels
> >2.4.0-test10 and 2.4.0-test11-pre5.
Hi,
I am using test10-pre5 on Duron.
>
> I couldn't get it to freeze. I tried it with asm("fldcw %0": :"m" (0))
> and with fesetenv() using gcc -lm to link it. I have glibc-2.1.2,
> egcs 2.91.66, and 2.4.0-test10.
>
> Regards,
> Adrian
Same here except gcc-2.95.2 and glibc 2.13. I got an floa
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I sure as hell hope this isn't an Athlon issue. Can other people try
> the test-program and see if we have a pattern (ie "it happens only on
> Athlons", or "Linus is on drugs and it happens for everybody else").
I've tried both variants (fesetenv and inline-asm) with g
On 17 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Markus=20Schoder?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The following small program (linked against glibc 2.1.3) reliably
> >freezes my system (Athlon Thunderbird CPU) with at least kernels
> >2.4.0-test10 and 2.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?q?Markus=20Schoder?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The following small program (linked against glibc 2.1.3) reliably
>freezes my system (Athlon Thunderbird CPU) with at least kernels
>2.4.0-test10 and 2.4.0-test11-pre5. Even the SysRq keys do not work
>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?q?Markus=20Schoder?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The following small program (linked against glibc 2.1.3) reliably
>freezes my system (Athlon Thunderbird CPU) with at least kernels
>2.4.0-test10 and 2.4.0-test11-pre5. Even the SysRq keys do not work
>
The following small program (linked against glibc
2.1.3) reliably
freezes my system (Athlon Thunderbird CPU) with at
least kernels
2.4.0-test10 and 2.4.0-test11-pre5. Even the SysRq
keys do not work
after the freeze.
Older kernels (e.g. 2.3.40) seem to work. Any Ideas?
23 matches
Mail list logo
