I have a dual processor Dell Precision 650. As of today, X will freezes shortly after it starts, but, only with the second processor enabled. If I go into the BIOS, and disable the second processor, then X works. If I re-enable the second processor, X freezes again.
Two things happened today.
1. I opened up the machine and blew out all of the dust. I could have jostled something and caused the second processor to break.
2. This morning up2date installed a new version of xorg software:
[Wed Mar 30 07:13:27 2005] up2date installing packages: ['foomatic-3.0.2-13.3', 'krb5-devel-1.3.6-5', 'krb5-libs-1.3.6-5', 'krb5-workstation-1.3.6-5', 'telnet-0.17-32.FC3.2', 'xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-Xdmx-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-Xnest-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-Xvfb-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-doc-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-font-utils-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-sdk-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-tools-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-twm-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-xauth-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-xdm-6.8.2-1.FC3.13', 'xorg-x11-xfs-6.8.2-1.FC3.13']
In the process of diagnoising this problem I logged in on several of the control-alt-FN alternative screens, while the second processor was enabled. I was able to run multiple du processes, and the machine didn't freeze. So I don't think that I broke processor 2.
I hit upon the idea of trying to disable the second processor because I had seen references to X freezes on this list. One suggestion to fix it was to disable hyperthreading, which simlates having a second processor. I tried that. It worked. But now I only have half of my available processors running. Yes, most of the time, surfing the web, I wouldn't notice it. But when I'm doing multiple tar -j's for a backup, I will.
So here are my questions:
1. Anyone else running FC3 on a dual processor? Are you seeing this problem? 2. Would this be better reported here, or to xorg? Does xorg mind having bugs submitted against xorg packages with a "FC3" as part of the package name? Or are they going to tell me something like "Oh, those packages were modified by the Fedora project. We won't do anything about this problem until you show us that it happened with our unadulterated packages." 3. Does it matter that the bogomips on the second processor are not equal to the bogomips on the first processor? (I would include the 2 different numbers here, but /proc/cpuinfo is only telling me about the first processor, since the second processor is diabled in BIOS.) 4. How to go back to the previous xorg release? Get it from the fedora web page?
Thanks,
--Seth Alford setha@aracnet.com
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 19:28 -0800, Seth Alford wrote:
I have a dual processor Dell Precision 650. As of today, X will freezes shortly after it starts, but, only with the second processor enabled. If I go into the BIOS, and disable the second processor, then X works. If I re-enable the second processor, X freezes again.
I am running on a dual hyperthreaded Xeon box (4 virtual processors) and it runs just fine.
Thomas
-----Original Message-----
I have a dual processor Dell Precision 650. As of today, X will freezes shortly after it starts, but, only with the second processor enabled. If I go into the BIOS, and disable the second processor, then X works. If I re-enable the second processor, X freezes again.
[snip]
So here are my questions:
- Anyone else running FC3 on a dual processor? Are you
seeing this problem? 2. Would this be better reported here, or to xorg? Does xorg mind having bugs submitted against xorg packages with a "FC3" as part of the package name? Or are they going to tell me something like "Oh, those packages were modified by the Fedora project. We won't do anything about this problem until you show us that it happened with our unadulterated packages." 3. Does it matter that the bogomips on the second processor are not equal to the bogomips on the first processor? (I would include the 2 different numbers here, but /proc/cpuinfo is only telling me about the first processor, since the second processor is diabled in BIOS.) 4. How to go back to the previous xorg release? Get it from the fedora web page?
I have FC3 running on a hyperthreaded P4 (Dell Inspiron 5160), so far today no problems running with the new xorg (installed this morning). Obviously, since my setup is a hyperthreaded P4 the bogomips for both "processors" are equal.
Brian
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:18:01PM -0800, Brian Gaynor wrote:
-----Original Message-----
I have a dual processor Dell Precision 650. As of today, X will freezes shortly after it starts, but, only with the second processor enabled. If I go into the BIOS, and disable the second processor, then X works. If I re-enable the second processor, X freezes again.
[snip]
So here are my questions:
- Anyone else running FC3 on a dual processor? Are you
seeing this problem? 2. Would this be better reported here, or to xorg? Does xorg mind having bugs submitted against xorg packages with a "FC3" as part of the package name? Or are they going to tell me something like "Oh, those packages were modified by the Fedora project. We won't do anything about this problem until you show us that it happened with our unadulterated packages." 3. Does it matter that the bogomips on the second processor are not equal to the bogomips on the first processor? (I would include the 2 different numbers here, but /proc/cpuinfo is only telling me about the first processor, since the second processor is diabled in BIOS.) 4. How to go back to the previous xorg release? Get it from the fedora web page?
I have FC3 running on a hyperthreaded P4 (Dell Inspiron 5160), so far today no problems running with the new xorg (installed this morning). Obviously, since my setup is a hyperthreaded P4 the bogomips for both "processors" are equal.
Brian
[snip]
I downloaded the previous xorg rpm's, version 6.8.1-12.FC3.21, from the Fedora web page. I forced rpm to load the previous packages, then I erased the newer xorg packages (6.8.2-1.FC3.13.) I should probably have done that in the opposite order. But, I'm now running with 2 processors enabled, no hyperthreading, in a gnome-terminal under X11.
So something about the newer xorg packages disagreed with my dual processor system.
BTW, I tried enabling hyperthreading again with the second processor disabled. Inexplicably, this time, the system locked up once I brought up X. I could have sworn that that worked correctly with the 6.8.2-1.FC3.13 packages.
Thanks for the responses.
--Seth
Seth Alford wrote:
I downloaded the previous xorg rpm's, version 6.8.1-12.FC3.21, from the Fedora web page. I forced rpm to load the previous packages, then I erased the newer xorg packages (6.8.2-1.FC3.13.) I should probably have done that in the opposite order.
The "right" way to do this would have been:
# rpm -Uvh --oldpackage xorg*6.8.1-12.FC3.21*.rpm
It is almost *never* necessary to use --force or --nodeps, and these options should be avoided if at all possible because they can result in a screwed-up system if used improperly.
Paul.
Seth Alford wrote:
I downloaded the previous xorg rpm's, version 6.8.1-12.FC3.21, from the Fedora web page. I forced rpm to load the previous packages, then I erased the newer xorg packages (6.8.2-1.FC3.13.) I should probably have done that in the opposite order. But, I'm now running with 2 processors enabled, no hyperthreading, in a gnome-terminal under X11.
So something about the newer xorg packages disagreed with my dual processor system.
BTW, I tried enabling hyperthreading again with the second processor disabled. Inexplicably, this time, the system locked up once I brought up X. I could have sworn that that worked correctly with the 6.8.2-1.FC3.13 packages.
Thank you for downgrading and verifying the issue. I would advise reporting at bugzilla.redhat.com and search upstream for any existing similar report. If nothing similar exists then also report upstream. Note in both reports the equivalent RH/upstream report URL.
Warren Togami wtogami@redhat.com
Hi
- Would this be better reported here, or to xorg? Does xorg mind having bugs submitted against xorg packages with a "FC3" as part of the package name? Or are they going to tell me something like "Oh, those packages were modified by the Fedora project. We won't do anything about this problem until you show us that it happened with our unadulterated packages."
the fedora packages dont differ much from upstream but its advisable to report them in bugzilla.redhat.com anyway