From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4C6E75BD.3030404@domain.hid> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:31:57 +0200 From: Theo Veenker MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4C45539B.70204@domain.hid> <4C6932E8.7050701@domain.hid> <4C694AB3.8050407@domain.hid> <4C698E16.5050806@domain.hid> <1282040830.1730.232.camel@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <1282040830.1730.232.camel@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] kernel 2.6.32.11 with xenomai 2.5.3 fails to boot on ubuntu lucid system List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Philippe Gerum Cc: Xenomai help Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 21:14 +0200, Theo Veenker wrote: >> On 08/16/2010 04:26 PM, Theo Veenker wrote: >>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> Theo Veenker wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I want to upgrade all our PC's from Ubuntu hardy to lucid and in the >>>>> process >>>>> I'm also going from kernel 2.6.29.5 with Xenomai 2.4.8 to kernel >>>>> 2.6.32.11 >>>>> with Xenomai 2.5.3. >>>>> >>>>> I first built and tested the 2.6.32.11 kernel with 2.5.3 on my hardy >>>>> system >>>>> and all went fine. But the problem is it just doesn't run on the >>>>> lucid distro. >>>> This, I do not understand, the kernel does not need any support from the >>>> distribution for booting, how can the same kernel boot with one >>>> distribution, and not with the other? When you say the "same kernel", do >>>> you mean the exact same zImage or bzImage, or do you mean the kernel >>>> with the same configuration, but with a different compiler, or only the >>>> version is identical? >>>> >>> It is a complete mystery to me either. I compiled my kernel into a deb >>> package >>> and installed the very same deb package on three machines: >>> MSI p45 neo3 with Hardy on it -> works OK >>> MSI p45 neo3 with Ludid on it -> nothing (works fine with regular kernel) >>> MSI 945P with Lucid on it: -> nothing (works fine with regular kernel) >>> >>> I'll try the suggestions posted and keep you informed. >> OK. Connected a terminal to catch early kernel messages. Still no output >> unfortunately (with the regular kernel I do get output on the terminal, >> so the connection works). >> >> Meanwhile also built and tested kernel 2.6.32.15 + xenomai 2.5.4. Still nothing. >> I'm clueless. I'm running Xenomai for years on dozens of systems and I've >> never run into problems like this. I think I'll have to sit down and take a >> close look at what I'm doing. I've always built my kernels using make-kpkg, >> maybe that somehow introduces a problem here. I'll try without it. >> >> (unfortunately/luckily I have to work from home for a few days so I can't >> get to the test system until later this week) > > I failed to reproduce the issue yet, but it very much looks like an > I-pipe bug. Could you try the following config variants when time > allows: > > - on 2.6.32.11 or .15, disable CONFIG_SMP, enable CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC > only (*). > - on 2.6.32.11 or .15, disable CONFIG_SMP, enable CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC and > CONFIG_X86_UP_IOAPIC (*). > - on 2.6.32.7, use your normal CONFIG_SMP config, with this patch in: > http://download.gna.org/adeos/patches/v2.6/x86/older/adeos-ipipe-2.6.32.7-x86-2.5-01.patch > > (*) you need to switch off CONFIG_SMP first, to see those knobs appear > in the "processor type and features" menu. > > The fact that you did see the panic blinking signal at least once tends > to point the finger at some access fault the kernel tries to recover > without success, rather than a sudden freeze. It must happen early > enough during the boot process, for the console not to be available yet > for reporting what the kernel whines about. > > We don't know yet if that bug is either the consequence of some > interrupt delivery, and/or induced by code only involved in SMP. Those > test configs may help in discovering this. > > TIA, > Here are my results. I've built 5 kernels: K1: 2.6.32.15 (without the adeos patch applied) K2: 2.6.32.15 + 2.5.4 K3: 2.6.32.15 + 2.5.4 CONFIG_SMP off, CONFIG_X86_UP_API on, CONFIG_XENOMAI off, CONFIG_IPIPE on K4: 2.6.32.15 + 2.5.4 as (3) with CONFIG_X86_UP_IOAPIC on K5: 2.6.32.7 with adeos-ipipe-2.6.32.7-x86-2.5-01.patch I now tested these kernels on four systems: A1: MSI 945P with Ubuntu 8.04 A2: MSI 945P with Ubuntu 10.04 B1: MSI p45 neo3 with Ubuntu 8.04 B2: MSI p45 neo3 with Ubuntu 10.04 A1 and A2 are identical systems from the same batch and B1 and B2 also. What worked: A1 A2 B1 B2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- K1 Y Y Y Y K2 Y N/Y Y N K3 Y N/Y Y N K4 Y N/Y Y N K5 Y N/Y Y N The No/Yes cases means on this system sometimes the kernel would boot (same as others have reported before). In the No cases I got no ouput on the attached console. Stange as it may be I still do see a strong correlation between the OS version and whether an adeos patched kernel works or not. Regards, Theo