Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-28 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 11:43 +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > >>but what what's the > >>penalty of preventing microcode from loading? a performance > >>hit? > > > > > > not even that; in theory a few cpu bugs may have been fixed. Nobody > > really knows since there

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-28 Thread Giacomo A. Catenazzi
Arjan van de Ven wrote: but what what's the penalty of preventing microcode from loading? a performance hit? not even that; in theory a few cpu bugs may have been fixed. Nobody really knows since there's no changelog for the microcode.. You can see the processor bugs in intel website, i.e.: ftp://

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-24 Thread Horst von Brand
Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Ammar T. Al-Sayegh wrote: > > I recently installed Fedora RC3 on a new server. > > The kernel is 2.6.10-1.741_FC3smp. > I can't really speak for Fedora RC3 kernels, > perhaps there's some special patch in there that happens to > trigger

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-24 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Nick Warne wrote: > > I upgraded memory - all 4 sticks - over Christmas, and after a few weeks > uptime, tried 2.4.10 again. > > I have had no problems since - so perhaps I did have bad memory (it was old). > But all tests never showed anything untoward. > > I was always su

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-24 Thread Arjan van de Ven
> I guess I can no longer monitor the processor temperature and > such after preventing i2c from loading, yup > but what what's the > penalty of preventing microcode from loading? a performance > hit? not even that; in theory a few cpu bugs may have been fixed. Nobody really knows since there'

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-24 Thread Ammar T. Al-Sayegh
really; it was supposed to do that already > >> i2c_dev13249 0 >> i2c_core 24513 1 i2c_dev > > try for fun to not use i2c for a while > >> microcode 11489 0 > same for microcode... try removing that so that the microcode of your > system doesn't g

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-24 Thread Arjan van de Ven
> really; it was supposed to do that already > > > >> i2c_dev13249 0 > >> i2c_core 24513 1 i2c_dev > > > > try for fun to not use i2c for a while > > > >> microcode 11489 0 > > same for microcode... try removing that so that the microcode of your

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-23 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Ammar T. Al-Sayegh wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Hugh Dickins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > though quite possibly you cannot afford > > such experiments on this server, and will revert to 2.4 for now. > > The problem is that my server is already in production > mode.

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-23 Thread Ammar T. Al-Sayegh
- Original Message - From: "Arjan van de Ven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ammar T. Al-Sayegh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:01 PM Subject: Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483! On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 16:45 -0500, Ammar T. Al-Sayeg

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-23 Thread Ammar T. Al-Sayegh
- Original Message - From: "Hugh Dickins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ammar T. Al-Sayegh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483! On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Ammar T. Al-Sayegh wrote: Any sug

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-23 Thread Nick Warne
> But not all cases could be accounted in that way. If you > report back that memtest86 ran cleanly... Hugh, Nothing to do with the 'problem' in this thread, but an aside that is perhaps relevant. On my main gateway, I couldn't get any kernel greater than 2.6.4 to run without an 'oops' after

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-23 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 16:45 -0500, Ammar T. Al-Sayegh wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 15:41 -0500, Ammar T. Al-Sayegh wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I recently installed Fedora RC3 on a new server. > >> The kernel is 2.6.10-1.741_FC3smp. The server > >> crashes every few days. When I examine /var/

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-23 Thread Ammar T. Al-Sayegh
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 15:41 -0500, Ammar T. Al-Sayegh wrote: Hi All, I recently installed Fedora RC3 on a new server. The kernel is 2.6.10-1.741_FC3smp. The server crashes every few days. When I examine /var/log/messages, I find the following line just before the crash: Feb 22 23:50:35 hostname ker

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-23 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Ammar T. Al-Sayegh wrote: > > I recently installed Fedora RC3 on a new server. > The kernel is 2.6.10-1.741_FC3smp. I can't really speak for Fedora RC3 kernels, perhaps there's some special patch in there that happens to trigger it for you, but certainly there have been occas

Re: kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:483!

2005-02-23 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 15:41 -0500, Ammar T. Al-Sayegh wrote: > Hi All, > > I recently installed Fedora RC3 on a new server. > The kernel is 2.6.10-1.741_FC3smp. The server > crashes every few days. When I examine /var/log/messages, > I find the following line just before the crash: > > Feb 22 23: