Comme=
nt # 34
on bug 10667=
1
from Alan W. Irwin
I have discovered this box became significantly less stable wh=
en there were two
users displaying X directly on it (one with startx , one with startx -- :1)=
and
using ctrl-alt-F1 and ctrl-alt-F2 to switch between the two local X servers
that were displaying two different XFCE desktops via the RX 550 graphics ca=
rd.
After moving to that mode of operation we got the following results for upt=
imes
before lockups:
1 day, 2 times
2 days, 1 time
3 days, 1 time
For each of these 4 lockups I could not spot any relevant messages in the l=
og
files. But the substantially shorter uptimes for this method of using this=
box
does appear to confirm there are still issues with the graphics stack for t=
he
RX550. But the graphics content being displayed by the two users is roughly
similar so I don't understand why this mode of operation is so much less st=
able
then if just one user is using the RX 550 while the other is using an
X-terminal. (None of these lockups occurred anywhere near the times we
switched between the two local X servers, but I suppose it is possible that
switching sets up a condition that results in a lockup much later.)
Anyhow, because of the increased instability I gave up on the two local X
servers approach and went back to the one local X server and one X-terminal
approach, and with that approach we got an uptime of a week before the syst=
em
locked up. That lockup occurred tonight, and I have attached a tarball
containing log files that show many NMI error messages associated with that
lockup (but with no reference to the e1000e module this time).
@Michel D=C3=A4nzer: Could you please take a look at these log files an=
d let me know
if this is the best place to report the present lockup?