Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Ian Kumlien]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 650 bytes --]

> ASUS have now supplied a BIOS update for the A7N8X-X which fixes the 
> C1 halt crash. dated the 2004/04/21.  So I assume that they will 
> supply a patch for all nforce2 motherboards.

you mean the 1009 bios? It doesn't fix anything.
I'm using it and:

dmesg output:
...
Asus A7N8X-X detected: BIOS IRQ0 pin2 override will be ignored
...
PCI: nForce2 C1 Halt Disconnect fixup
...

(I'm the one that told Len about the new bios that doesn't fix the pin2
bug and afair, the C1 Halt Disconnect fix checked for flawed values, ie,
this bios dosn't fix anything...)
-- 
Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Richard James]

Ian Kumlien wrote:

>>ASUS have now supplied a BIOS update for the A7N8X-X which fixes the 
>>C1 halt crash. dated the 2004/04/21.  So I assume that they will 
>>supply a patch for all nforce2 motherboards.
>>    
>>
>
>you mean the 1009 bios? It doesn't fix anything.
>I'm using it and:
>
>dmesg output:
>...
>Asus A7N8X-X detected: BIOS IRQ0 pin2 override will be ignored
>...
>PCI: nForce2 C1 Halt Disconnect fixup
>...
>
>(I'm the one that told Len about the new bios that doesn't fix the pin2
>bug and afair, the C1 Halt Disconnect fix checked for flawed values, ie,
>this bios dosn't fix anything...)
>  
>
Weird as it no longer crashes my system. Which Kernel are you using? Did 
you turn off the C1Halt patch?

Richard James

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Richard James]

Ian Kumlien wrote:

>>ASUS have now supplied a BIOS update for the A7N8X-X which fixes the 
>>C1 halt crash. dated the 2004/04/21.  So I assume that they will 
>>supply a patch for all nforce2 motherboards.
>>    
>>
>
>you mean the 1009 bios? It doesn't fix anything.
>I'm using it and:
>
>dmesg output:
>...
>Asus A7N8X-X detected: BIOS IRQ0 pin2 override will be ignored
>...
>PCI: nForce2 C1 Halt Disconnect fixup
>...
>
>(I'm the one that told Len about the new bios that doesn't fix the pin2
>bug and afair, the C1 Halt Disconnect fix checked for flawed values, ie,
>this bios dosn't fix anything...)
>  
>
Actually you are right I just retested it and my system still locks up. 
I must have done something wrong on the origional testing.

My apologies

Richard James

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Ian Kumlien]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1533 bytes --]

On Sat, 2004-05-08 at 07:31, Richard James wrote:
> Ian Kumlien wrote:
> 
> >>ASUS have now supplied a BIOS update for the A7N8X-X which fixes the 
> >>C1 halt crash. dated the 2004/04/21.  So I assume that they will 
> >>supply a patch for all nforce2 motherboards.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >you mean the 1009 bios? It doesn't fix anything.
> >I'm using it and:
> >
> >dmesg output:
> >...
> >Asus A7N8X-X detected: BIOS IRQ0 pin2 override will be ignored
> >...
> >PCI: nForce2 C1 Halt Disconnect fixup
> >...
> >
> >(I'm the one that told Len about the new bios that doesn't fix the pin2
> >bug and afair, the C1 Halt Disconnect fix checked for flawed values, ie,
> >this bios dosn't fix anything...)
> >  
> >
> Actually you are right I just retested it and my system still locks up. 
> I must have done something wrong on the origional testing.
> 
> My apologies

Np, the bug is somewhat annoying in that sometimes the machine has to be
running for several days. I updated that bios the same day it was
released.. (i missed the actual upload with some hours)

It only fixes what it says in the change log =P... And i had just been
in contact with them pointing them to information from Allen Martin
about the pin2 that should be pin0 bug and nothing has happened.

Now i have to find where it was that i sent that bugreport again, since
the common "international" support thingy dosn't work, and hasn't for
some time =P.

-- 
Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Craig Bradney]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 193 bytes --]

Well.. 2.6.6 is released.. and THANK YOU Linus and all the patch
writers.. we have nforce2 fixes in the released kernel now. I'm just
waiting for a gentoo-dev-sources release now..

Craig

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Ross Dickson]

Craig Bradney wrote

>Well.. 2.6.6 is released.. and THANK YOU Linus and all the patch 
> writers.. we have nforce2 fixes in the released kernel now. I'm just 
> waiting for a gentoo-dev-sources release now.. 
> 
>
>
>Craig 

MOMENT PLEASE.
ALMOST complete nforce2 support. Job not done yet.

Unfortunately 2.6.6 still has the old check_timer code which inhibits
nmi_watchdog=1 on all nforce2 from working by having timer_ack=1
when checking io-apic pit routing.

It is a hardware issue - NOT A BUGGY BIOS ISSUE inside the integrated 
nforce2 interrupt routing.

To my understanding IT WILL NEVER BE FIXED BY A BIOS REVISION and 
after reading the 8259 datasheets I think it is a mistake within the
existing code to have the timer_ack on there in the first place. 

I would still like to see Maciej's check_timer patch in the kernel. It was
pulled after only a single user mobo complaint was posted yet it helps
both nforce2 and ibm bios pc's. To my knowledge little effort was made
by that user to accomodate the patch - it was just outright pulled in spite
of its benefit to others?

Who do we ask to revisit this? Linus? the io-apic.c maintainer? or the one
user with a complaint?

That patch that was dropped by Linus? after appearing in 2.6.3-mm3. 
For those nforce2 users with problems of clock skew with the timer into pin0
routing, that patch gave a virtual wire timer routing which worked well.

It also works around serious problems for ibm users who also want it in.
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2004-04/4421.html

Regards
Ross.

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Craig Bradney]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1965 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 13:37, Ross Dickson wrote:
> Craig Bradney wrote
> 
> >Well.. 2.6.6 is released.. and THANK YOU Linus and all the patch 
> > writers.. we have nforce2 fixes in the released kernel now. I'm just 
> > waiting for a gentoo-dev-sources release now.. 
> > 
> >
> >
> >Craig 
> 
> MOMENT PLEASE.
> ALMOST complete nforce2 support. Job not done yet.

I was waiting for that...

> Unfortunately 2.6.6 still has the old check_timer code which inhibits
> nmi_watchdog=1 on all nforce2 from working by having timer_ack=1
> when checking io-apic pit routing.
> 
> It is a hardware issue - NOT A BUGGY BIOS ISSUE inside the integrated 
> nforce2 interrupt routing.
> 
> To my understanding IT WILL NEVER BE FIXED BY A BIOS REVISION and 
> after reading the 8259 datasheets I think it is a mistake within the
> existing code to have the timer_ack on there in the first place. 
> 
> I would still like to see Maciej's check_timer patch in the kernel. It was
> pulled after only a single user mobo complaint was posted yet it helps
> both nforce2 and ibm bios pc's. To my knowledge little effort was made
> by that user to accomodate the patch - it was just outright pulled in spite
> of its benefit to others?
> 
> Who do we ask to revisit this? Linus? the io-apic.c maintainer? or the one
> user with a complaint?
> 
> That patch that was dropped by Linus? after appearing in 2.6.3-mm3. 
> For those nforce2 users with problems of clock skew with the timer into pin0
> routing, that patch gave a virtual wire timer routing which worked well.

Why was it dropped?

> It also works around serious problems for ibm users who also want it in.
> http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2004-04/4421.html

It looks like theres IDE caching problems with the new flushing
mechanism on Maxtor 8mb cache drives.. of which I have 2, so, looks like
I'm awaiting 2.6.7 now anyway or a patch to remove it.

Craig

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Ian Kumlien]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2152 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 13:37, Ross Dickson wrote:
> Craig Bradney wrote
> 
> >Well.. 2.6.6 is released.. and THANK YOU Linus and all the patch 
> > writers.. we have nforce2 fixes in the released kernel now. I'm just 
> > waiting for a gentoo-dev-sources release now.. 
> >
> >Craig 
> 
> MOMENT PLEASE.
> ALMOST complete nforce2 support. Job not done yet.

Damn =)

> Unfortunately 2.6.6 still has the old check_timer code which inhibits
> nmi_watchdog=1 on all nforce2 from working by having timer_ack=1
> when checking io-apic pit routing.
> 
> It is a hardware issue - NOT A BUGGY BIOS ISSUE inside the integrated 
> nforce2 interrupt routing.

So it should be in.

> To my understanding IT WILL NEVER BE FIXED BY A BIOS REVISION and 
> after reading the 8259 datasheets I think it is a mistake within the
> existing code to have the timer_ack on there in the first place. 

The "breaking" machine could be blacklisted instead.

> I would still like to see Maciej's check_timer patch in the kernel. It was
> pulled after only a single user mobo complaint was posted yet it helps
> both nforce2 and ibm bios pc's. To my knowledge little effort was made
> by that user to accomodate the patch - it was just outright pulled in spite
> of its benefit to others?

Hummm, and now ppl seem to be forcing 4k stacks that breaks my laptop to
a level of non usability.. =P

> Who do we ask to revisit this? Linus? the io-apic.c maintainer? or the one
> user with a complaint?

Perhaps there should be a workaround option, ie like acpi=force etc.

> That patch that was dropped by Linus? after appearing in 2.6.3-mm3. 
> For those nforce2 users with problems of clock skew with the timer into pin0
> routing, that patch gave a virtual wire timer routing which worked well.

> It also works around serious problems for ibm users who also want it in.
> http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2004-04/4421.html

Rediffed it against 2.6.6
But i don't see how the virtual wire mode was done, i just rediffed the
patch that i found.

-- 
Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net

[-- Attachment #1.2: io-apic.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1507 bytes --]

--- linux/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c.orig	2004-05-10 14:08:00.000000000 +0200
+++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c	2004-05-10 14:12:17.000000000 +0200
@@ -2159,6 +2159,10 @@
 {
 	int pin1, pin2;
 	int vector;
+	unsigned int ver;
+
+	ver = apic_read(APIC_LVR);
+	ver = GET_APIC_VERSION(ver);
 
 	/*
 	 * get/set the timer IRQ vector:
@@ -2172,11 +2176,15 @@
 	 * mode for the 8259A whenever interrupts are routed
 	 * through I/O APICs.  Also IRQ0 has to be enabled in
 	 * the 8259A which implies the virtual wire has to be
-	 * disabled in the local APIC.
+	 * disabled in the local APIC. Finally timer interrupts
+	 * need to be acknowledged manually in the 8259A for
+	 * do_slow_timeoffset() and for the i82489DX when using
+	 * the NMI watchdog.
 	 */
 	apic_write_around(APIC_LVT0, APIC_LVT_MASKED | APIC_DM_EXTINT);
 	init_8259A(1);
-	timer_ack = 1;
+	timer_ack = !cpu_has_tsc;
+	timer_ack |= nmi_watchdog == NMI_IO_APIC && !APIC_INTEGRATED(ver);
 	enable_8259A_irq(0);
 
 	pin1 = find_isa_irq_pin(0, mp_INT);
@@ -2194,7 +2202,8 @@
 				disable_8259A_irq(0);
 				setup_nmi();
 				enable_8259A_irq(0);
-				check_nmi_watchdog();
+				if (check_nmi_watchdog() < 0)
+					timer_ack = !cpu_has_tsc;
 			}
 			return;
 		}
@@ -2217,7 +2226,8 @@
 				add_pin_to_irq(0, 0, pin2);
 			if (nmi_watchdog == NMI_IO_APIC) {
 				setup_nmi();
-				check_nmi_watchdog();
+				if (check_nmi_watchdog() < 0)
+					timer_ack = !cpu_has_tsc;
 			}
 			return;
 		}

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Arjen Verweij]

Does the 2.6.6 Changelog section about nforce2 imply that Ross' Patches of
Stability are no longer required? I don't read lkml regularely, so this
would be new for me.

Anyway, if this works (tm) I am very happy. Will attempt to test it later
on, even though I have Maxtor 8MB discs :)

Regards,

Arjen

<B.Zolnierkiewicz@elka.pw.edu.pl>
	[PATCH] fixup for C1 Halt Disconnect problem on nForce2 chipsets

	Based on information provided by "Allen Martin" <AMartin@nvidia.com>:

	A hang is caused when the CPU generates a very fast CONNECT/HALT
	cycle sequence.  Workaround is to set the SYSTEM_IDLE_TIMEOUT to
	80 ns. This allows the state-machine and timer to return to a
	proper state within 80 ns of the CONNECT and probe appearing
	together.  Since the CPU will not issue another HALT within 80 ns
	of the initial HALT, the failure condition is avoided.


On Mon, 10 May 2004, Ross Dickson wrote:

> Craig Bradney wrote
>
> >Well.. 2.6.6 is released.. and THANK YOU Linus and all the patch
> > writers.. we have nforce2 fixes in the released kernel now. I'm just
> > waiting for a gentoo-dev-sources release now..
> >
> >
> >
> >Craig
>
> MOMENT PLEASE.
> ALMOST complete nforce2 support. Job not done yet.
>
> Unfortunately 2.6.6 still has the old check_timer code which inhibits
> nmi_watchdog=1 on all nforce2 from working by having timer_ack=1
> when checking io-apic pit routing.
>
> It is a hardware issue - NOT A BUGGY BIOS ISSUE inside the integrated
> nforce2 interrupt routing.
>
> To my understanding IT WILL NEVER BE FIXED BY A BIOS REVISION and
> after reading the 8259 datasheets I think it is a mistake within the
> existing code to have the timer_ack on there in the first place.
>
> I would still like to see Maciej's check_timer patch in the kernel. It was
> pulled after only a single user mobo complaint was posted yet it helps
> both nforce2 and ibm bios pc's. To my knowledge little effort was made
> by that user to accomodate the patch - it was just outright pulled in spite
> of its benefit to others?
>
> Who do we ask to revisit this? Linus? the io-apic.c maintainer? or the one
> user with a complaint?
>
> That patch that was dropped by Linus? after appearing in 2.6.3-mm3.
> For those nforce2 users with problems of clock skew with the timer into pin0
> routing, that patch gave a virtual wire timer routing which worked well.
>
> It also works around serious problems for ibm users who also want it in.
> http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2004-04/4421.html
>
> Regards
> Ross.
>
>
>

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Ian Kumlien]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1420 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 17:05, Arjen Verweij wrote:
> Does the 2.6.6 Changelog section about nforce2 imply that Ross' Patches of
> Stability are no longer required? I don't read lkml regularely, so this
> would be new for me.

Do a grep for nforce and you'll find:
<B.Zolnierkiewicz@elka.pw.edu.pl>
	[PATCH] fixup for C1 Halt Disconnect problem on nForce2 chipsets
	
	Based on information provided by "Allen Martin" <AMartin@nvidia.com>:
	
	A hang is caused when the CPU generates a very fast CONNECT/HALT cycle
	sequence.  Workaround is to set the SYSTEM_IDLE_TIMEOUT to 80 ns.
	This allows the state-machine and timer to return to a proper state within
	80 ns of the CONNECT and probe appearing together.  Since the CPU will not
	issue another HALT within 80 ns of the initial HALT, the failure condition
	is avoided.

and:
<len.brown@intel.com>
	[ACPI] workaround for nForce2 BIOS bug: XT-PIC timer in IOAPIC mode 
	"acpi_skip_timer_override" boot parameter
	dmi_scan for common platforms, may be replaced with PCI-ID in future.
	http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1203

So it's only missing the patches that ross mentioned, it will still work
without em. (except for clock drift afair)

> Anyway, if this works (tm) I am very happy. Will attempt to test it later
> on, even though I have Maxtor 8MB discs :)

-- 
Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Ian Kumlien]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 507 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 17:05, Arjen Verweij wrote:
> Does the 2.6.6 Changelog section about nforce2 imply that Ross' Patches of
> Stability are no longer required? I don't read lkml regularely, so this
> would be new for me.
> 
> Anyway, if this works (tm) I am very happy. Will attempt to test it later
> on, even though I have Maxtor 8MB discs :)

Sorry, i must have needed food or so, i missed the post you had there...
=P

-- 
Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH]

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Mon, 10 May 2004, Ross Dickson wrote:

> To my understanding IT WILL NEVER BE FIXED BY A BIOS REVISION and 
> after reading the 8259 datasheets I think it is a mistake within the
> existing code to have the timer_ack on there in the first place. 

 The timer_ack variation exploits the polling mode of the i8259A with the
AEOI enabled.  It's a valid configuration.  It's needed for a correct
operation of the timer interrupt handler and the NMI watchdog in certain
configurations.  What's there in the datasheets you that makes you think
the code is a mistake?  A reference would be appreciated.

  Maciej

-- 
+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+        e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available        +