OTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.2.13pre15 SMP+IDE test summary
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
the online community service for gamers & friends
Do you have anything that monitors temperature on your system?
I had similar lockups on a dual-SMP and found out my 2nd CPU was overheating
and was causing lockups.
Removing the 2nd CPU fixed my lockup problems. And, putting in two new CPUs
also fixed it (Duall PIII/500 now running for 5 days).
> PIO request cues...as they take longer to serviceis is
> possible that we are slipping out of the rq-> order and loading the
> do_ide_request with repeated calls more often than the acknowledged and
> cleared?
What about filling everything with printk-messages, stopping klogd
and add
Since this is appearing to be a disk only thingy
There is an item to be addressed in ide-disk.c
PIO request cues...as they take longer to serviceis is
possible that we are slipping out of the rq-> order and loading the
do_ide_request with repeated calls more often than the a
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I can think of these possible reasons for the SMP problems:
> >
> > (A) SMP race(s) in IDE driver in original 2.2.13pre15
> > (B) SMP-deadlock in raid-2.2.11-patch
>
> (B) is quite unlikely if you do not have it applied and the box still
> crashes?
On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 mingo wrote:
is it correct that this failing kernel didnt have the RAID patch applied?
for the record:
My (similar, single, but rather immediate) failure happened on a
kernel without RAID patch (and without RAID enabled) at all.
Once I removed '-mcpu=i686 -O6'
On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One more pre15 test:
> 2.2.13pre15 with Unified IDE 2.2.13pre14-19991003 (two rejects in ide.c, one ok, one
>probably harmless):
> (5) dual P3 machine: NULL deref after 6 hours (i.e. this pre15 kernel survived
>longest)
is it correct that this fai
