Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Jun 1998 12:05:15 -0400 | From | Mark Lord <> | Subject | Re: Major 2.1.x problem index |
| |
I seem to recall hearing that this was a K6/VP2 bug, rather than an IDe-specific problem.
Right?
Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Alan, you wrote: > > http://roadrunner.swansea.uk.linux.org/jobs.shtml holds the major > > showstopper items for a 2.2 release, and a few other bugs indexed on a > > web page. > > > > I've gone back to problems filed and reproduced from 2.1.97 onwards > > so far. My archive goes back a lot further, its just less and less > > productive the further I dig (and more and more boring ;)). > > I have one problem I consider major, though I have a > performance-reducing workaround: > > - Without `ide0=nodma', my system will suddenly just freeze > (SysRq not working). It usually freezes a few times a day, though > sometimes several days of uptime have gone by without a freeze. > > With it, the system is very reliable and I have had uptimes in > excess of a month to test this. There have been a couple of > freezes in this case, but only while starting the X server > (3.3.1, which I believe has a known bug for this, while > initialising my video card). > > As I have work to do, I always use `ide0=nodma' except when trying > a new kernel to see if the problem has gone away. > > This has been present with all 2.1.x I've tried, including at > least 2.1.70, 2.1.72, 2.1.80, 2.1.82, 2.1.85, 2.1.96, 2.1.105. > Haven't tried 2.1.106 because of mentions of fs corruption on > linux-kernel. > > System is AMD K6/233, VIA VP2/97 chipset, Quantum FB ST 6.4GB disk. > > This bug has been demonstrated with simple disk activity tests in > single user mode, no other I/O except writing to the screen, though I > haven't found any specific way to reproduce it. > > Others have reported total freezes. Perhaps they should also try > `ide0=nodma' (or the appropriate variation), to see if their freezes > also stop. > > Here's something I'm not even sure is a problem, it just surprised me: > > - A couple of times (either with 2.1.85 or 2.1.96, I forget), I have > needed to reset the box after X crashed while initialising. On the > next boot, fsck (on /usr) was skipped as if the filesystem was > unmounted cleanly. > > It is possible /usr was not written to by this time though it was > definitely mounted read-write. Is this behaviour correct, > i.e. not marking the disk as dirty even though it has been mounted > rw? (Perhaps the dirty flag is deferred until the first write). > There is a lot of disk activity in my boot process which continues > beyond starting X. I was a bit worried that the flags to mark > /usr dirty were not getting written to disk synchronously, instead > being delayed by all the other disk activity going on. > > -- Jamie > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
-- mlord@pobox.com The Linux IDE guy
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |