[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: fast clock wreaks havoc on amd64 dual core - hp1250n




Frederik,

Thanks much. I will test this. With the exception of some disquieting kernel logs:

Oct 23 07:00:38 line kernel: APIC error on CPU0: 40(40)
Oct 23 07:00:38 line kernel: APIC error on CPU1: 40(40)
Oct 23 07:07:19 line kernel: APIC error on CPU0: 40(40)
Oct 23 07:07:19 line kernel: APIC error on CPU1: 40(40)
(etc)

The system I have written about earlier (new HP a1250n , dual-core athlon 64, ATI motherboard ) is up and running well over days of use.
 I am using a boot configuration (grub):

title           Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.14-rc5
root            (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.14-rc5ns1-rc5 root=/dev/sda1 ro notsc no_timer_check
initrd          /boot/initrd.img-2.6.14-rc5ns1-rc5
boot


   Questions:

Will the disable_timer_pin_1 eliminate the need for timer_check, notsc options? Sounds to me like it will.

How far back is this option? Do I have to stay at rc5? Although I have to say that so far I have had no other problems with this relatively bleeding edge release.

ps. If anyone on the kernel list is reading, I am willing to attempt some testing on this machine if it can help you. For some reason I did not get access to lkml after I applied. I imagine a lot of folks will be buying this hardware - it is a truly awesome computing environment if you are not out to get a graphics-intensive gaming machine.

nathan





Frederik Schueler wrote:

On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 09:07:47PM -0400, Nathan O. Siemers wrote:
Unfortunately 2 hours is not enough time to say this is a stable configuration (24 hours is better), but encouraging. I have hit the system with high cpu, video, disk, and ieee load to test but sometime the clock starts going haywire again after several more hours...
Thanks to all that responded so far.

try booting with

disable_timer_pin_1

this option was introcuced in 2.6.14-rc as a workaround for buggy ATI
chipsets.

Best regards
Frederik Schueler




Reply to: