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

Re: 2.4 Kernel locks at boot



Arief,

The last screen reads

Detected 1300.79 MHz Processor
Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
Calibrating delay loop... 2595.27 BogoMIPS
Memory 223692K/229312K available (1546K kernel code, 5232K reserved, 626K
data, 104K init, 0K highmem)
Checking if the processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode... OK
Dentry cache hash table entries: 32768 (order 6, 262144 bytes)
Inode cache hash table entries: 16384 (order 5, 131072 bytes)
Mount-cache hash table entries: 4096 (order 3, 32768 bytes)
Buffer-cache hash table entries: 16384 (order 4, 65536 bytes)
Page-cache hash table entries: 65536 (order 6, 262144 bytes)
Advanced speculative caching feature present
Disabling advanced speculative caching
CPU: L1 I Cache: 64K (64 bytes/line), D Cache 64K (64 bytes/line)
CPU: L2 Cache 64K (64 bytes/line)
Intel machine check architecture supported
Intel machine check reporting enabled on CPU#0
CPU: AMD Duron(tm) Processor stepping 01
Enabling fast FPU save and restore... done
Enabling unmasked SIMD FPU exception support... done
Checking 'hlt' instruction... done
POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX
Enabling ExtINT on CPU#0
ESR value before enabling vector: 00000002


And the it freezes, but as I say not on 2.2.20.

Thanks in anticipation - Andrew



On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 01:33:52PM +0700, arief_mulya wrote:
> Dear Andrew,
> 
> 
> Andrew M. Lindley wrote:
> >I have installed Woody with current security updates on a AMD Duron 1.3 
> >with
> >an EagleTEC M825ULR motherboard, 256Mb memory and an IBM 60GB harddrive. 
> >The
> >2.2.20 kernel supplied with the Woody CD set boots fine but 2.4.18 2.4.19 
> >and
> >2.4.20 all lock up / freeze / halt early in the boot sequence when the
> >processor has just been detected. The last message is 
> >
> >ESR value before enabling vector: 00000002
> >
> 
> Can you be more specific on this last message?
> 
> A few more lines would be nice.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> arief_mulya
> -- 
> 
> 



Reply to: