lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Update: Linux-2.0.34 "crashme" results
On Fri, 29 May 1998, Andreas Haumer wrote:
> 9.) MB ASUS P/I-P55T2P4, 256MB RAM, Intel i586-200 MMX, 2xAHA2940UW,
> 2GB SCSI + 16GB UW-SCSI RAID5 (5xIBM DCAS-34330), 120MB Swap,
> Linux-2.0.34pre16, gcc-2.7.3.2
> (same system as 6., but with Intel CPU)
> -> NO Crash after 3 hours (about 30000 Processes), and still
> running...
I also noticed that all of your tests are under 2.1.33 or .34 -- I'm
starting one under 2.1.104-pre1 now.

10.) MB Unknown, 32MB RAM, Intel i586-166 (stepping 12), Triton VX chipset,
32MB swap, gcc-2.8.0.
-> NO Crash after about 5 min <G>, still running (and under active
use, though I'm killing rc5 now) (anybody up for
distributed-crashme <G>).

> It seems, "crashme" triggers some problem within the AMD CPU, maybe
> some illegal code halts or crashes the CPU or something like that.
> (Doesn't this sound familiar? We all remember the problems AMD CPU's
> had about a year ago!)
Hmm... but the different systems crashed at very different points, whereas
if all of them were crashing on some piricular instruction, you would expect
the time of the crash to scale with the processor speed. (Even though we
are using a psudo-random string, we are always initing with the same value,
so we should get the same string, yes?)

> I'll also try to add a logging facility to "crashme". Maybe I can find
> the illegal instructions, which crash the AMD CPU.
You would need to have crashme report the number of instructions processed
every second or so, then add up the total instructions for the run, and just
run through the rand() function that many times and look ahead a bit.

> What do you all think about this? Am I hunting ghosts or could this
> be a real, new K6 problem?
Anything is possible, and in this case perhaps probable. More likely
though, it is not that simple -- not a pirticular bit of code you need to
execute, but some combonation of many varibles, like what the system was
doing at that purticular point (you didn't start crashme from the init=
on the kernel command line, so there were a few other processes running.)

-=- James Mastros
--
True mastery is knowing enough to bullshit the rest.
-=- Me
http://www.rtweb.net/theorb coming soon (or when I get around to it).


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:0.149 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site