DA bug report logs - #284477
kernel-image-2.6.8-1-686: IBM ThinkCentre sometimes goes to extremely sluggish state

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: tale@iki.fi (Tapio Lehtonen)
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: kernel-image-2.6.8-1-686: IBM ThinkCentre sometimes goes to extremely sluggish state
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:28:15 +0200

Subject: kernel-image-2.6.8-1-686: IBM ThinkCentre sometimes goes to extremely sluggish state
Package: kernel-image-2.6.8-1-686
Version: 2.6.8-10
Severity: normal

*** Please type your report below this line ***

Sometimes IBM ThinkCentre MT-M 8183-35G goes to some strange state where
the whole computer is extremely slow. Any command takes about one minute
to execute, so the computer is so slow it is unusable. Only way to
recover seems to reboot, but even shutdown takes about 15 minutes.

I have tried setting acpi=off, and checked acpi was not available when
running so I did that correctly. It did not help, still the sluggishness
happened.

I have maintained this classroom of 13 machines since August, same
problem has been all the time. I have tried different kernel versions,
but it is hard to say if the problem has been better or worse, since it
seems completely random. No matter if a student is using the machine or
it is just idling, it may go to this sluggish state. In a two hour
session, about 2 machines go to this state and they have to be rebooted. 

More info available from http://people.debian.org/~tale/IBM/

The PNG image is from ssh session where I ran apt-get update and host
nttv37 claims it took 49710 days to fetch the files. Other hosts did
it in 4 seconds. So time runs wrong on nttv37, which happened to go to
this sluggish state.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-1-686
Locale: LANG=fi_FI@euro, LC_CTYPE=fi_FI@euro (charmap=ISO-8859-15)

Versions of packages kernel-image-2.6.8-1-686 depends on:
ii  coreutils [fileutils]         5.2.1-2    The GNU core utilities
ii  initrd-tools                  0.1.74     tools to create initrd image for p
ii  module-init-tools             3.1-rel-2  tools for managing Linux kernel mo

-- no debconf information

Message #12 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: tale@debian.org
To: 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Solution found
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 03:13:00 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I got from Dennis Danielson his kernel configuration. He had the same
problem at pemstar which is a dotcom.

#
# ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support
#
CONFIG_ACPI=y
CONFIG_ACPI_BOOT=y
CONFIG_ACPI_INTERPRETER=y
# CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP is not set
CONFIG_ACPI_AC=y
# CONFIG_ACPI_BATTERY is not set
CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=y
CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=y
CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=y
CONFIG_ACPI_THERMAL=y
# CONFIG_ACPI_ASUS is not set
# CONFIG_ACPI_TOSHIBA is not set
CONFIG_ACPI_BLACKLIST_YEAR=0
# CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG is not set
CONFIG_ACPI_BUS=y
CONFIG_ACPI_EC=y
CONFIG_ACPI_POWER=y
CONFIG_ACPI_PCI=y
CONFIG_ACPI_SYSTEM=y
CONFIG_X86_PM_TIMER=y

I tested this and so far have not seen that sluggish state since the
kernel with the above ACPI configuration is running.

-- 
Tapio Lehtonen
Tapio.Lehtonen@IKI.FI
GPG public key from http://www.iki.fi/Tapio.Lehtonen

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Horms <horms@debian.org>
To: tale@debian.org, 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#284477: Solution found
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:47:06 +0900

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 03:13:00AM +0200, tale@debian.org wrote:
> I got from Dennis Danielson his kernel configuration. He had the same
> problem at pemstar which is a dotcom.

I have no idea what the above statement is supposed to imply,
but the main difference between the Debian config and what is below
is that CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP has been disabled. But that code
shouldn't really come into effect unless you ask the system to go
to sleep. What sources you building from?

> #
> # ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support
> #
> CONFIG_ACPI=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_BOOT=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_INTERPRETER=y
> # CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP is not set
> CONFIG_ACPI_AC=y
> # CONFIG_ACPI_BATTERY is not set
> CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_THERMAL=y
> # CONFIG_ACPI_ASUS is not set
> # CONFIG_ACPI_TOSHIBA is not set
> CONFIG_ACPI_BLACKLIST_YEAR=0
> # CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG is not set
> CONFIG_ACPI_BUS=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_EC=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_POWER=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_PCI=y
> CONFIG_ACPI_SYSTEM=y
> CONFIG_X86_PM_TIMER=y
> 
> I tested this and so far have not seen that sluggish state since the
> kernel with the above ACPI configuration is running.
> 
> -- 
> Tapio Lehtonen
> Tapio.Lehtonen@IKI.FI
> GPG public key from http://www.iki.fi/Tapio.Lehtonen



-- 
Horms

Message #22 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: tale@iki.fi (Tapio Lehtonen)
To: 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#284477: Solution found
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:53:02 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:47:06PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 03:13:00AM +0200, tale@debian.org wrote:
> but the main difference between the Debian config and what is below
> is that CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP has been disabled. But that code
> shouldn't really come into effect unless you ask the system to go
> to sleep. What sources you building from?

Debian sources for kernel 2.6.8. 

The bug was in Debian kernels. I have tried several kernel-image-2.6*
since August, and all of them had the problem.

My guess is, that the system goes to some kind of sleep or hibernate
state, since everything works, just unusably slow. So disabling acpi
sleep and see the problem go away is just logical. 

-- 
Tapio Lehtonen
Tapio.Lehtonen@IKI.FI
GPG public key from http://www.iki.fi/Tapio.Lehtonen

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #27 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Horms <horms@debian.org>
To: tapio.lehtonen@iki.fi, 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#284477: Solution found
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:24:33 +0900

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 12:53:02PM +0200, Tapio Lehtonen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:47:06PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 03:13:00AM +0200, tale@debian.org wrote:
> > but the main difference between the Debian config and what is below
> > is that CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP has been disabled. But that code
> > shouldn't really come into effect unless you ask the system to go
> > to sleep. What sources you building from?
> 
> Debian sources for kernel 2.6.8. 
> 
> The bug was in Debian kernels. I have tried several kernel-image-2.6*
> since August, and all of them had the problem.
> 
> My guess is, that the system goes to some kind of sleep or hibernate
> state, since everything works, just unusably slow. So disabling acpi
> sleep and see the problem go away is just logical. 

Yes, that sounds about right to me too.



-- 
Horms

Message #32 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Krammer Clemens" <Clemens.Krammer@telekom.at>
To: <284477@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Sluggish State solved with BIOS Upgrade
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:13:02 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Good Afternoon,

I experienced the same problem with an extremely sluggish state on my
IBM Thinkcentre M50 8187-F8G. After trying to disable ACPI_SLEEP with no
success I found out the following:

http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=TCTR-ERRN
91

After flashing my BIOS those sleep state problems disappeared.


regards,
Clemens

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #37 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jacobo Tarrio <jtarrio@debian.org>
To: 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Same with IBM Thinkcentre A50
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:48:19 +0100

 The same thing happens with the IBM Thinkcentre A50, MT-M 8089-74G.

 With 2.6.8-2-686 it seizes: the clock starts jumping forward and backwards
(between 16:01 and 17:12, the time I discovered that), the screen blanks out
(since, suddenly, the system has spent 1 hour and 11 minutes idle ;-)), and
even simple commands take ages to execute. Finally, it hangs completely.

 Fun observation: if I launch a program from KDE's panel, the cursor gets
the bouncing icon, but it doesn't bounce; when I press any key it advances a
frame in its bouncing.

 These are the last messages in /var/log/syslog before starting with the
poltergeist thing:

[standard bootup messages]
Mar 16 16:11:06 pitagoras kernel: lp0: using parport0 (interrupt-driven).
Mar 16 16:11:06 pitagoras lpd[3107]: restarted
Mar 16 16:11:08 pitagoras postfix/postfix-script: starting the Postfix mail system
Mar 16 16:11:08 pitagoras postfix/master[3200]: daemon started -- version 2.1.5
Mar 16 16:11:08 pitagoras kernel: NET: Registered protocol family 10
Mar 16 16:11:08 pitagoras kernel: Disabled Privacy Extensions on device c02ff020(lo)
Mar 16 16:11:08 pitagoras kernel: IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling driver
Mar 16 16:11:09 pitagoras xfs: ignoring font path element /usr/lib/X11/fonts/cyrillic/ (unreadable)
Mar 16 16:11:09 pitagoras /usr/sbin/cron[3347]: (CRON) INFO (pidfile fd = 3)
Mar 16 16:11:09 pitagoras /usr/sbin/cron[3348]: (CRON) STARTUP (fork ok)
Mar 16 16:11:09 pitagoras /usr/sbin/cron[3348]: (CRON) INFO (Running @reboot jobs)
Mar 16 16:11:09 pitagoras xfs: ignoring font path element /usr/lib/X11/fonts/CID (unreadable)
Mar 16 16:11:10 pitagoras Xprt_64: No matching visual for __GLcontextMode with visual class = 0 (32775), nplanes = 8
Mar 16 16:11:11 pitagoras kernel: [drm] Initialized i830 1.3.2 20021108 on minor 0: Intel Corp. 82865G Integrated Graphics Device
Mar 16 16:11:11 pitagoras kernel: mtrr: base(0xf0020000) is not aligned on a size(0x800000) boundary
Mar 16 16:11:16 pitagoras kdm_greet[3512]: Can't open default user face
Mar 16 16:11:19 pitagoras kernel: eth0: no IPv6 routers present
Mar 16 16:12:02 pitagoras gconfd (jtarrio-3672): comenzando (versión 2.8.1), pid 3672 usuario "jtarrio"
Mar 16 16:12:02 pitagoras gconfd (jtarrio-3672): Se resolvio la direccion "xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory" a una fuente de configuracion de solo lectura en la posicion 0
Mar 16 16:12:02 pitagoras gconfd (jtarrio-3672): Se resolvio la direccion "xml:readwrite:/home/jtarrio/.gconf" a una fuente de configuracion escribible en la posicion 1
Mar 16 16:12:02 pitagoras gconfd (jtarrio-3672): Se resolvio la direccion "xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults" a una fuente de configuracion de solo lectura en la posicion 2
Mar 16 16:17:01 pitagoras /USR/SBIN/CRON[3682]: (root) CMD (   run-parts --report /etc/cron.hourly)
Mar 16 16:31:05 pitagoras -- MARK --
Mar 16 16:51:05 pitagoras -- MARK --

 I'd like to call your attention upon the messages at 16:11:10 and 16:11:11.
I believe they appear when X is loaded (for kdm). However, another
Thinkcentre we're temporarily using as a firewall, with no X, suffers from
the same ailment (in fact, it is the first one we noticed it on).

 I haven't seen 2.4.27-1-386 exhibit this behaviour yet. The equivalent 686
version is to be tested today (will report).

 A BIOS update is useless since the version on IBM's support pages is the
same one the computers came loaded with.

-- 
   Jacobo Tarrío     |     http://jacobo.tarrio.org/

Message #42 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "D. Brian Larkins" <brian@sunshinepoultry.com>
To: 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: upstream tracking bug
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:00:29 -0500

We have 3 ThinkCentre machines (model 8085) which exhibited the same
behaviour. BIOS upgrades were unhelpful as above, as was commenting out
the ACPI Sleep functionality in the config. 

Kernel source is tracking this bug (with a fix that worked for me on
unstable/2.6.10) as follows:

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4235

brian.

Message #47 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Horms <horms@debian.org>
To: "D. Brian Larkins" <brian@sunshinepoultry.com>,
	284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#284477: upstream tracking bug
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:03:40 +0900

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:00:29PM -0500, D. Brian Larkins wrote:
> We have 3 ThinkCentre machines (model 8085) which exhibited the same
> behaviour. BIOS upgrades were unhelpful as above, as was commenting out
> the ACPI Sleep functionality in the config. 
> 
> Kernel source is tracking this bug (with a fix that worked for me on
> unstable/2.6.10) as follows:
> 
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4235

Thanks for the follow up, though that fix looks like
it could break other things, so I am quite hesitant
to add it to 2.6.8.

-- 
Horms

Message #52 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin Stigge <stigge@sulfurcell.de>
To: 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: X86_UP_IOAPIC = n
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:42:31 +0200

Hi,

I can reproduce this bug on the ThinkCentres here and will try the 
solutions mentioned in this bug report.

Additionally, I read somewhere on debian-user the proposal to disable 
X86_UP_IOAPIC and will try this too.

Best regards,
Martin

-- 
SULFURCELL Solartechnik GmbH
Martin Stigge
Barbara-McClintock-Str. 11
12489 Berlin
stigge@sulfurcell.de

Message #57 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Horms <horms@debian.org>
To: Martin Stigge <stigge@sulfurcell.de>, 302001@bugs.debian.org
Cc: 284477@bugs.debian.org, 298301@bugs.debian.org,
	rafael.espindola@gmail.com, control@bugs.debian.org,
	acpi_other@kernel-bugs.osdl.org
Subject: Re: Bug#302001: Merge bugs?
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:22:23 +0900

priority 284477 important
priority 298301 important
merge 284477 298301 302001
thanks

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:56:20AM +0200, Martin Stigge wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> after reading other bug reports regarding symptoms with a crazy clock, I 
> think the behaviour I described is the same as in #284477 and #298301.
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=284477
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298301

Agreed, this mail should merge them.

I had a quick look around, and it seems that most/all of the
reports of this bug are from Debian users. Which could mean
a number of things, but it does make me wonder if it is
caused by one of the patches applied to the Debian Kernel.

Is there any chance that any of the interested parties could test
a) 2.4.12 from unstable and b) an unpatched kernel from kernel.org?

In the mean time, the best work around seems to be to
commend out the call to acpi_ut_evaluate_object() in
acpi_pci_add_link() in drivers/acpi/pci_link.c. 

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4235

But that looks like a solution that will make other things fall apart,
and I am entirely uncomfortable with the idea of applying that fix to
Debain.

-- 
Horms

Message #68 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin Stigge <stigge@sulfurcell.de>
To: Horms <horms@debian.org>
Cc: 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#302001: Merge bugs?
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:13:59 +0200

Horms schrieb:
>>after reading other bug reports regarding symptoms with a crazy clock, I 
>>think the behaviour I described is the same as in #284477 and #298301.
>>
>>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=284477
>>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298301
> 
> Agreed, this mail should merge them.
> 
> I had a quick look around, and it seems that most/all of the
> reports of this bug are from Debian users. Which could mean
> a number of things, but it does make me wonder if it is
> caused by one of the patches applied to the Debian Kernel.

btw: It first appeared here when I tried Ubuntu Warty (as you can read 
in #302001), so the Ubuntu kernel is (was?) also affected. (I don't know 
how much Ubuntu and Debian kernels differ...)

Note also that it happened only after insertion of the uhci_hcd module, 
see #302001.

> Is there any chance that any of the interested parties could test
> a) 2.4.12 from unstable and b) an unpatched kernel from kernel.org?

I'll try an unpatched kernel on an affected machine within the next 10 days.

Are you sure there is an 2.4.12 in unstable? What's special to this 
kernel? I also tried kernel-image-2.4.27-2-686 from sarge, where the 
problem seemed to be gone - but some of the affected systems where 
somehow instable using this kernel (random lockups within 3-6 days).

For me (with kernel 2.6), disabling ACPI_SLEEP and X86_UP_IOAPIC worked 
(no BIOS update, no comment-out in pci_link.c). Maybe one of them would 
have been enough, but there wasn't enough time to test this..

> In the mean time, the best work around seems to be to
> commend out the call to acpi_ut_evaluate_object() in
> acpi_pci_add_link() in drivers/acpi/pci_link.c. 
> 
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4235
> 
> But that looks like a solution that will make other things fall apart,
> and I am entirely uncomfortable with the idea of applying that fix to
> Debain.

Agreed, that's why I first tried the other work arounds.

Martin

-- 
SULFURCELL Solartechnik GmbH
Martin Stigge
Barbara-McClintock-Str. 11
12489 Berlin
stigge@sulfurcell.de

Message #73 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Horms <horms@debian.org>
To: Martin Stigge <stigge@sulfurcell.de>
Cc: 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#302001: Merge bugs?
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:39:53 +0900

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:13:59AM +0200, Martin Stigge wrote:
> Horms schrieb:
> >>after reading other bug reports regarding symptoms with a crazy clock, I 
> >>think the behaviour I described is the same as in #284477 and #298301.
> >>
> >>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=284477
> >>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298301
> >
> >Agreed, this mail should merge them.
> >
> >I had a quick look around, and it seems that most/all of the
> >reports of this bug are from Debian users. Which could mean
> >a number of things, but it does make me wonder if it is
> >caused by one of the patches applied to the Debian Kernel.
> 
> btw: It first appeared here when I tried Ubuntu Warty (as you can read 
> in #302001), so the Ubuntu kernel is (was?) also affected. (I don't know 
> how much Ubuntu and Debian kernels differ...)
> 
> Note also that it happened only after insertion of the uhci_hcd module, 
> see #302001.
> 
> >Is there any chance that any of the interested parties could test
> >a) 2.4.12 from unstable and b) an unpatched kernel from kernel.org?
> 
> I'll try an unpatched kernel on an affected machine within the next 10 days.
> 
> Are you sure there is an 2.4.12 in unstable? 

Sorry I ment 2.6.12, its at ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/

> What's special to this kernel? I also tried kernel-image-2.4.27-2-686
> from sarge, where the problem seemed to be gone - but some of the
> affected systems where somehow instable using this kernel (random
> lockups within 3-6 days).

There is nothing particularly special about 2.6.12, I just think it
would be good to check if it has been fixed upstream.

> For me (with kernel 2.6), disabling ACPI_SLEEP and X86_UP_IOAPIC worked 
> (no BIOS update, no comment-out in pci_link.c). Maybe one of them would 
> have been enough, but there wasn't enough time to test this..

Ok, strange that worked but passing kernel boot parameters didn't,
or am I thinking about a different big?

> >In the mean time, the best work around seems to be to
> >commend out the call to acpi_ut_evaluate_object() in
> >acpi_pci_add_link() in drivers/acpi/pci_link.c. 
> >
> >http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4235
> >
> >But that looks like a solution that will make other things fall apart,
> >and I am entirely uncomfortable with the idea of applying that fix to
> >Debain.
> 
> Agreed, that's why I first tried the other work arounds.
> 
> Martin

-- 
Horms

Message #78 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Horms <horms@debian.org>
To: Martin Stigge <stigge@sulfurcell.de>, 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#284477: X86_UP_IOAPIC = n
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:05:23 +0900

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:42:31AM +0200, Martin Stigge wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I can reproduce this bug on the ThinkCentres here and will try the 
> solutions mentioned in this bug report.
> 
> Additionally, I read somewhere on debian-user the proposal to disable 
> X86_UP_IOAPIC and will try this too.

Giving the kernel boot parameter noapic should have the same effect 
as diabling X86_UP_IOAPIC at compile time on a UP system.

-- 
Horms

Message #83 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin Stigge <stigge@sulfurcell.de>
To: Horms <horms@debian.org>
Cc: 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#302001: Merge bugs?
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:55:21 +0200

Horms schrieb:
>>>Is there any chance that any of the interested parties could test
>>>a) 2.4.12 from unstable and b) an unpatched kernel from kernel.org?
>>
>>I'll try an unpatched kernel on an affected machine within the next 10 days.
>>
>>Are you sure there is an 2.4.12 in unstable? 
> 
> Sorry I ment 2.6.12, its at ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/

What worked so far is a self-compiled Debian patched 2.6.11 with 
ACPI_SLEEP and X86_UP_IOAPIC disabled, but the precompiled 2.6.11-2-686 
didn't. What also worked (on one of the machines, the others are in 
production-use, I can't test very much there) is the precompiled 
2.6.12-1-686 with kernel-option "noapic", and without that, the clock 
went crazy again - which is a) from above. (!) These were my tests so 
far -- I'll try a vanilla 2.6.12.3 within the next days (b from above).

>>What's special to this kernel? I also tried kernel-image-2.4.27-2-686
>>from sarge, where the problem seemed to be gone - but some of the
>>affected systems where somehow instable using this kernel (random
>>lockups within 3-6 days).
> 
> There is nothing particularly special about 2.6.12, I just think it
> would be good to check if it has been fixed upstream.

It's not.

>>For me (with kernel 2.6), disabling ACPI_SLEEP and X86_UP_IOAPIC worked 
>>(no BIOS update, no comment-out in pci_link.c). Maybe one of them would 
>>have been enough, but there wasn't enough time to test this..
> 
> Ok, strange that worked but passing kernel boot parameters didn't,
> or am I thinking about a different big?

I didn't pass any of the mentioned parameters before. (!) Seems noapic 
is enough here (as being equivalent to disabling X86_UP_IOAPIC?).

Martin

-- 
SULFURCELL Solartechnik GmbH
Martin Stigge
Barbara-McClintock-Str. 11
12489 Berlin
stigge@sulfurcell.de

Message #88 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Horms <horms@debian.org>
To: Martin Stigge <stigge@sulfurcell.de>
Cc: 284477@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#302001: Merge bugs?
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:12:30 +0900

tag 302001 + upstream
thanks

On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 11:55:21AM +0200, Martin Stigge wrote:
> Horms schrieb:
> >>>Is there any chance that any of the interested parties could test
> >>>a) 2.4.12 from unstable and b) an unpatched kernel from kernel.org?
> >>
> >>I'll try an unpatched kernel on an affected machine within the next 10 
> >>days.
> >>
> >>Are you sure there is an 2.4.12 in unstable? 
> >
> >Sorry I ment 2.6.12, its at 
> >ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/
> 
> What worked so far is a self-compiled Debian patched 2.6.11 with 
> ACPI_SLEEP and X86_UP_IOAPIC disabled, but the precompiled 2.6.11-2-686 
> didn't. What also worked (on one of the machines, the others are in 
> production-use, I can't test very much there) is the precompiled 
> 2.6.12-1-686 with kernel-option "noapic", and without that, the clock 
> went crazy again - which is a) from above. (!) These were my tests so 
> far -- I'll try a vanilla 2.6.12.3 within the next days (b from above).
> 
> >>What's special to this kernel? I also tried kernel-image-2.4.27-2-686
> >>from sarge, where the problem seemed to be gone - but some of the
> >>affected systems where somehow instable using this kernel (random
> >>lockups within 3-6 days).
> >
> >There is nothing particularly special about 2.6.12, I just think it
> >would be good to check if it has been fixed upstream.
> 
> It's not.

Thanks, I'm tagging this as upstream accordinly,
but unfortunately I'm not sure what else to do with it.

-- 
Horms

Message #95 received at 284477@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kaare Hviid <ukh@id.cbs.dk>
To: 284477@bugs.debian.org
Subject: 8183-PWG also affected
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:52:35 +0200

For what it's worth, the ThinkCentre 8183-PWG is also affected.  I have
tried rebuilding the sarge 2.6.8 kernel with ACPI_SLEEP and
X86_UP_IOAPIC disabled, and also updating to the latest 2005-06-14
flash (2AKT50AUS), to no avail.
    The problem isn't quite straight-forward to trigger on this box,
though - it appears at what seems completely random times.  Also, at at
least one occasion, the machine was able to bring itself out of that
sluggish state on its own!  If anyone has a reliable way of triggering
the ThinkCentre Slug State(TM), it would help a lot diagnosing this
problem.
    This might be a side-effect that has nothing to do with the problem
itself, but when the system has been in "the sluggish state" for a long
time, it appears all memory is allocated but no swap space.
    Initially, with very old flashes, I had problems with the machine
locking up hard at random times with the system speaker beeping with
ear-shattering intensity, when I typed on the PS/2 keyboard.  This
behvior is gone - apparently a BIOS issue.

-ukh

Message #100 received at 284477-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
To: 284477-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: 2.6.8 kernel removed from Debian
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:57:00 +0100

The 2.6.8 kernel is no longer supported by Debian so I'm closing
your bug report.  Please try the 2.6.26 kernel from Debian lenny.
If this issue is still present, let me know.

Thanks.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.