lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.24-rc8 hangs at mfgpt-timer
Hi guys,

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 12:32:26AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> [ 44.013100] NET: Registered protocol family 16
> [ 44.066308] geode-mfgpt: IRQ MSR=0:0
> [ 44.110161] geode-mfgpt: NMI MSR=0:0
> [ 44.154037] geode-mfgpt: Unrestricted sources=0
>
> Then it hangs here.
> In another mail I sent privately to Andres, I noticed that it was the
> following line which hangs at first iteration (i == 0) :
>
> val = geode_mfgpt_read(i, MFGPT_REG_SETUP);
>
> I have a tinybios 0.98 with no workaround option configurable. I also
> have CONFIG_GEODE_MFGPT_TIMER=n.

Good news! I read the mfgpt patch for 2.6.22 and saw what the workaround
consisted in (writing 0xff at MSR 0x5140002B). So I tried adding the
following on top of 2.6.24-rc8 :

static int __init mfgpt_fix(char *s)
{
u32 val, dummy;

/* The following udocumented bit resets the MFGPT timers */
val = 0xFF;
wrmsr(0x5140002B, val, dummy);

return 1;
}
__setup("mfgptfix", mfgpt_fix);

and booted with the newly added option (mfgptfix). It worked like a charm :

[ 29.173796] NET: Registered protocol family 16
[ 29.226986] geode: lbars[0].base = 0x9d00
[ 29.275003] geode: lbars[1].base = 0x9c00
[ 29.323042] geode: lbars[2].base = 0x6100
[ 29.371082] geode: lbars[3].base = 0x6200
[ 29.419121] geode-mfgpt: IRQ MSR=0:0
[ 29.463000] geode-mfgpt: NMI MSR=0:0
[ 29.506881] geode-mfgpt: Unrestricted sources=0
[ 29.562202] geode_mfgpt: reading 0x6200 + 0x6 + (0x0 * 8) = 0x6206
[ 29.636237] geode_mfgpt: reading 0x6200 + 0x6 + (0x1 * 8) = 0x620e
[ 29.710270] geode_mfgpt: reading 0x6200 + 0x6 + (0x2 * 8) = 0x6216
[ 29.784305] geode_mfgpt: reading 0x6200 + 0x6 + (0x3 * 8) = 0x621e
[ 29.858338] geode_mfgpt: reading 0x6200 + 0x6 + (0x4 * 8) = 0x6226
[ 29.932376] geode_mfgpt: reading 0x6200 + 0x6 + (0x5 * 8) = 0x622e
[ 30.006409] geode_mfgpt: reading 0x6200 + 0x6 + (0x6 * 8) = 0x6236
[ 30.080444] geode_mfgpt: reading 0x6200 + 0x6 + (0x7 * 8) = 0x623e
[ 30.154475] geode: 8 MFGPT timers available.

So it seems like applying the workaround on top of TinyBIOS 0.98 undoes
this BIOS's workaround. I'm now wondering how we could detect whether
the workaround was applied or not :-/

Next, I retried with MFGPT_TIMER=y + latest fix you posted moving the
initialization race, and here's what I get now :

root@ALOHA-500:~# cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
0: 77 XT-PIC-XT timer
2: 0 XT-PIC-XT cascade
4: 348 XT-PIC-XT serial
7: 12273 XT-PIC-XT mfgpt-timer
8: 0 XT-PIC-XT rtc
10: 80 XT-PIC-XT eth0
11: 0 XT-PIC-XT eth1
12: 1 XT-PIC-XT eth2
14: 13614 XT-PIC-XT ide0
NMI: 0 Non-maskable interrupts
TRM: 0 Thermal event interrupts
SPU: 0 Spurious interrupts
ERR: 0

Interestingly, during the boot, I got thousands of the following line :
geode_mfgpt: reading 0x6200 + 0x6 + (0x0 * 8) = 0x6206

It's a debug line I added in geode_mfgpt_read() which writes the timer and
reg being read. It slowed the boot down due to being written to a serial
console, but fortunately stopped when syslogd had changed the console log
level. Just checking...

# grep mfgpt /proc/interrupts;sleep 10;grep mfgpt /proc/interrupts
7: 82320 XT-PIC-XT mfgpt-timer
7: 84882 XT-PIC-XT mfgpt-timer

It delivers 256 IRQs/s. That makes me think about this comment in mfgpt_32.c :

* We are using the 32Khz input clock - its the only one that has the
* ranges we find desirable. The following table lists the suitable
* divisors and the associated hz, minimum interval
* and the maximum interval:
*
* Divisor Hz Min Delta (S) Max Delta (S)
* 1 32000 .0005 2.048
* 2 16000 .001 4.096
* 4 8000 .002 8.192
...

When you say a 32kHz clock, you mean 32000 Hz. Are you really sure ? Most
32 kHz clocks everywhere are really 32768 Hz (the watch quartz). BTW, I'm
seeing a 32.768 kHz xtal close to the CS5536, and the numbers above seem
to support this suggestion too.

So right now that I've found what caused old kernel to unexpectedly work,
I'm planning a BIOS upgrade. I'm still just wondering what we can do to
detect that the workaround should be needed. I suspect nothing, of course,
but just in case... Maybe we can detect the effects of the workaround ?

Best regards,
Willy



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-22 21:47    [W:0.258 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site