Re: Kernel stability on baytrail machines
Hi, I think there might be another clue on this one. One of the comments is also mentioning an unfixed erratum of certain Baytrail processors, named as "EOI Transaction May Not be Sent if Software Enters Core C6 During an Interrupt Service Routine". This erratum can be found on several different processors, even on several non-baytrails, like Inte Xeon 3400 and similar. I also came across a patch that was created for SUSE and that seems to be adressing this issue in pre 4.X kernels: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?file=22160-Intel-C6-EOI.patch&package=xen&project=home%3Acharlesa%3AopenSUSE11.3&rev=7 --- Michal Dne 18.7.2016 15:30, One Thousand Gnomes napsal: On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:41:58 -0300 Ezequiel Garcia wrote: Hi Alan, (Adding interested people to this thread) On 09 Apr 08:14 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > I do feel that the importance of the mentioned bug is currently > > > underestimated. Can anyone here give a note, how much current linux > > > kernel is supposed to be stable on general baytrail machines? > > > > If you did not get any replies... you might want to check MAINTAINERS file, and > > put Intel x86 maintainers on Cc list. > > > > I'm sure someone cares :-). > > Yes we care, and there are people looking at the various reports. > Are there any updates on the status of this issue? The current bugzilla report [1] marks this as a power management issue. However, many reports indicate that it would only freeze when running X, so it's not completely clear if it's related to the gfx driver too. There are two things we are currently tracking. One of them was merged which seems to have made my machine stable at least and fixes a problem related to the MMC. The second one we may need is a power related changed to SPI to hold the CPU in C0/C1 whenever the ACPI _SEM is held. Graphics shows these problems up because of the way the GPU causes power state changes. Alan
Re: Kernel stability on baytrail machines
Dne 13.7.2016 v 12:48 Pavel Machek napsal(a) Are there any updates on the status of this issue? The current bugzilla report [1] marks this as a power management issue. However, many reports indicate that it would only freeze when running X, so it's not completely clear if it's related to the gfx driver too. Does "intel_idle.max_cstate=1" fix it for you? Yes, it does. If you feel it is X-only problem, you may want to provide details about your graphics subsystem (DRM enabled? framebuffer only?) and probably cc. It's not X-only problem. Happens even in console mode, which is KMS switched during boot though. ...actually... you may want to verify if it happens in unaccelerated X. As it happens even in console mode, is this relevant test? No, no need to test with X. Would it be possible to test in good old VGA mode? For past few days I updated to 4.6.3 kernel and tested with X and without X, in console mode and no KMS. My machine is way more stable than with previous 4.5.* and 4.4.* kernels I tried. With 4.6.3 kernel and X running, I had only one freeze during Firefox session with video playback. For the rest of two days of testing, no hang. I was not able to hang the machine during another 2 days of testing with 4.6.3 kernel and console mode with KMS disabled. It's fair to say, that stress testing of GFX is quite limited when running in console mode :-). I tried hard with mplayer with libcaca and with repeated kernel compilation task. No hang occured. My conclussion is that 4.6.3 is surelly a huge improvement, compared to 4.5 and 4.4. kernels regarding Bay trail stability issue. Michal Feix
Re: Kernel stability on baytrail machines
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:41:58 -0300 Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > Hi Alan, > > (Adding interested people to this thread) > > On 09 Apr 08:14 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > > I do feel that the importance of the mentioned bug is currently > > > > underestimated. Can anyone here give a note, how much current linux > > > > kernel is supposed to be stable on general baytrail machines? > > > > > > If you did not get any replies... you might want to check MAINTAINERS > > > file, and > > > put Intel x86 maintainers on Cc list. > > > > > > I'm sure someone cares :-). > > > > Yes we care, and there are people looking at the various reports. > > > > Are there any updates on the status of this issue? > > The current bugzilla report [1] marks this as a power management > issue. However, many reports indicate that it would only freeze > when running X, so it's not completely clear if it's related to > the gfx driver too. There are two things we are currently tracking. One of them was merged which seems to have made my machine stable at least and fixes a problem related to the MMC. The second one we may need is a power related changed to SPI to hold the CPU in C0/C1 whenever the ACPI _SEM is held. Graphics shows these problems up because of the way the GPU causes power state changes. Alan
Re: Kernel stability on baytrail machines
> On Tue 2016-07-12 16:41:58, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > >>Hi Alan, > >> > >>(Adding interested people to this thread) > >> > >>On 09 Apr 08:14 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > >I do feel that the importance of the mentioned bug is currently > >underestimated. Can anyone here give a note, how much current linux > >kernel is supposed to be stable on general baytrail machines? > If you did not get any replies... you might want to check MAINTAINERS > file, and > put Intel x86 maintainers on Cc list. > > I'm sure someone cares :-). > >>>Yes we care, and there are people looking at the various reports. > >>> > >>Are there any updates on the status of this issue? > >> > >>The current bugzilla report [1] marks this as a power management > >>issue. However, many reports indicate that it would only freeze > >>when running X, so it's not completely clear if it's related to > >>the gfx driver too. > >Does > > > >"intel_idle.max_cstate=1" > > > >fix it for you? > Yes, it does. > >If you feel it is X-only problem, you may want to provide details > >about your graphics subsystem (DRM enabled? framebuffer only?) and > >probably cc. > It's not X-only problem. Happens even in console mode, which is KMS > switched during boot though. > >...actually... you may want to verify if it happens in unaccelerated X. > As it happens even in console mode, is this relevant test? No, no need to test with X. Would it be possible to test in good old VGA mode? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Re: Kernel stability on baytrail machines
On Tue 2016-07-12 16:41:58, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: Hi Alan, (Adding interested people to this thread) On 09 Apr 08:14 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: I do feel that the importance of the mentioned bug is currently underestimated. Can anyone here give a note, how much current linux kernel is supposed to be stable on general baytrail machines? If you did not get any replies... you might want to check MAINTAINERS file, and put Intel x86 maintainers on Cc list. I'm sure someone cares :-). Yes we care, and there are people looking at the various reports. Are there any updates on the status of this issue? The current bugzilla report [1] marks this as a power management issue. However, many reports indicate that it would only freeze when running X, so it's not completely clear if it's related to the gfx driver too. Does "intel_idle.max_cstate=1" fix it for you? Yes, it does. If you feel it is X-only problem, you may want to provide details about your graphics subsystem (DRM enabled? framebuffer only?) and probably cc. It's not X-only problem. Happens even in console mode, which is KMS switched during boot though. ...actually... you may want to verify if it happens in unaccelerated X. As it happens even in console mode, is this relevant test? Michal
Re: Kernel stability on baytrail machines
On Tue 2016-07-12 16:41:58, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > Hi Alan, > > (Adding interested people to this thread) > > On 09 Apr 08:14 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > > I do feel that the importance of the mentioned bug is currently > > > > underestimated. Can anyone here give a note, how much current linux > > > > kernel is supposed to be stable on general baytrail machines? > > > > > > If you did not get any replies... you might want to check MAINTAINERS > > > file, and > > > put Intel x86 maintainers on Cc list. > > > > > > I'm sure someone cares :-). > > > > Yes we care, and there are people looking at the various reports. > > > > Are there any updates on the status of this issue? > > The current bugzilla report [1] marks this as a power management > issue. However, many reports indicate that it would only freeze > when running X, so it's not completely clear if it's related to > the gfx driver too. Does "intel_idle.max_cstate=1" fix it for you? If you feel it is X-only problem, you may want to provide details about your graphics subsystem (DRM enabled? framebuffer only?) and probably cc. ...actually... you may want to verify if it happens in unaccelerated X. INTEL DRM DRIVERS (excluding Poulsbo, Moorestown and derivative chipsets) M: Daniel Vetter M: Jani Nikula L: intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org L: dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org W: https://01.org/linuxgraphics/ Q: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/intel-gfx/ T: git git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel S: Supported F: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ F: include/drm/i915* F: include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Re: Kernel stability on baytrail machines
Hi Alan, (Adding interested people to this thread) On 09 Apr 08:14 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > I do feel that the importance of the mentioned bug is currently > > > underestimated. Can anyone here give a note, how much current linux > > > kernel is supposed to be stable on general baytrail machines? > > > > If you did not get any replies... you might want to check MAINTAINERS file, > > and > > put Intel x86 maintainers on Cc list. > > > > I'm sure someone cares :-). > > Yes we care, and there are people looking at the various reports. > Are there any updates on the status of this issue? The current bugzilla report [1] marks this as a power management issue. However, many reports indicate that it would only freeze when running X, so it's not completely clear if it's related to the gfx driver too. Also, do we know which CPUs are affect by this issue? and which are NOT affected :) - would be quite relevant in picking a CPU for a product. [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109051 -- Ezequiel Garcia, VanguardiaSur www.vanguardiasur.com.ar
Re: Kernel stability on baytrail machines
> > I do feel that the importance of the mentioned bug is currently > > underestimated. Can anyone here give a note, how much current linux > > kernel is supposed to be stable on general baytrail machines? > > If you did not get any replies... you might want to check MAINTAINERS file, > and > put Intel x86 maintainers on Cc list. > > I'm sure someone cares :-). Yes we care, and there are people looking at the various reports. Alan
Re: Kernel stability on baytrail machines
Hi! > aprox. 6 months ago I started facing random freezes on my baytrail > based computers I manage. It took me a while before I found a bug > report in freedesktop bugzilla named "complete freeze after: > drm/i915/vlv: WA for Turbo and RC6 to work together" - > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88012. It took a few > more months for this bug to escalate into MAJOR importance and was > later moved into kernel bugzilla as "intel_idle.max_cstate=1 > required on baytrail to prevent crashes" - > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109051. > > Based on the ammount of comments in both bugtickets and probably > connected observations on different linux distros forums, this seems > to be a showstopper on mainstream Baytrail based machines for many > users. I'm trying to understand, how visible (and thus important) is > this instability across baytrail machines on linux kernel across > population. > > I do feel that the importance of the mentioned bug is currently > underestimated. Can anyone here give a note, how much current linux > kernel is supposed to be stable on general baytrail machines? If you did not get any replies... you might want to check MAINTAINERS file, and put Intel x86 maintainers on Cc list. I'm sure someone cares :-). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Kernel stability on baytrail machines
Hello everyone, aprox. 6 months ago I started facing random freezes on my baytrail based computers I manage. It took me a while before I found a bug report in freedesktop bugzilla named "complete freeze after: drm/i915/vlv: WA for Turbo and RC6 to work together" - https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88012. It took a few more months for this bug to escalate into MAJOR importance and was later moved into kernel bugzilla as "intel_idle.max_cstate=1 required on baytrail to prevent crashes" - https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109051. Based on the ammount of comments in both bugtickets and probably connected observations on different linux distros forums, this seems to be a showstopper on mainstream Baytrail based machines for many users. I'm trying to understand, how visible (and thus important) is this instability across baytrail machines on linux kernel across population. I do feel that the importance of the mentioned bug is currently underestimated. Can anyone here give a note, how much current linux kernel is supposed to be stable on general baytrail machines? Cheers, -- Michael
