From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HmxRA-0003R3-T3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 12 May 2007 19:39:29 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4CJd3qC002785; Sat, 12 May 2007 19:39:03 GMT Received: from alnrmhc13.comcast.net (alnrmhc13.comcast.net [206.18.177.53]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l4CJd2Rn002780 for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 19:39:03 GMT Received: from [71.237.219.233] (unknown[71.237.219.233]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20070512193901b1300dqc30e>; Sat, 12 May 2007 19:39:01 +0000 Message-ID: <464617D4.2020506@cesmail.net> Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 12:39:00 -0700 From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-releng@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-releng] AMD64 dual-core testing on 2007.0? References: <20070503012946.r3hmg4o0wg8sk0w4@webmail.spamcop.net> <1178230233.18735.0.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <463E1DF1.3090101@cesmail.net> <4643B805.3020302@gentoo.org> <1178901074.4065.2.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> In-Reply-To: <1178901074.4065.2.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 54864008-6ab7-40a7-83f3-fe1f96f8abaf X-Archives-Hash: e8e0c41e264384163d4c7cf0acadb1e3 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:25 +1000, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > >> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: >> >>> I can't tell yet whether it's hardware or software, but I'm guessing the >>> kernel at this point rather than hardware -- I have some >>> /var/log/messages traces that don't look like hardware. Once I get a >>> stable OS, I'll load Gentoo from it and do the real debugging. The >>> 2.4.20 kernel in Gentoo stable has to be better that the 2.4.18s the >>> other distros seem to be carrying. >>> >> What I find to be a cause of a lot of stability issues. Probably even >> more so on multiprocessor/core systems is preemption. Voluntary >> preemption is OK, but other preemption still seems to be a bit flaky at >> places. >> > > Umm... What? > > I use preemption all the time on all of my machines, which are *all* > multi-processor or multi-core. The kernel preemption works just fine on > all of them. What tends to be the problem is shoddy APIC or ACPI > implementations on the cheaper (read, not server/workstation class) > motherboards. > > I'm still testing some things, but there are some bugs in the NVidia "sata_nv" part of the AMD64 Linux kernel that have showed up in the Debian bug archives. Apparently it worked in older kernels and got broken "recently". I haven't found any differences with or without either pre-emption, SMP vs. UP, ACPI or APIC. The only thing I've found so far is that 32-bit kernels seem to work and 64-bit ones don't. At the moment I've only got a gigabyte of RAM in the machine so I'm not losing a heck of a lot by running a 32-bit kernel. :) -- gentoo-releng@gentoo.org mailing list