On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> I finally found the reason why 386es have trouble booting the 2.4.0 kernel:
Good job.
> Pentiums are only lucky to not crash because they have a bigger TLB than 386s.
Actually, with the 4M pages, it's not a question of luck any more - they
just
Hi everybody,
I finally found the reason why 386es have trouble booting the 2.4.0 kernel:
In routine pagetable_init() in arch/i386/mm/init.c, a pte gets installed before
it actually has been filled with valid entries. This causes the kernel text
segment to be temporarily unmapped. Pentiums are
Hi everybody,
I finally found the reason why 386es have trouble booting the 2.4.0 kernel:
In routine pagetable_init() in arch/i386/mm/init.c, a pte gets installed before
it actually has been filled with valid entries. This causes the kernel text
segment to be temporarily unmapped. Pentiums are
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
I finally found the reason why 386es have trouble booting the 2.4.0 kernel:
Good job.
Pentiums are only lucky to not crash because they have a bigger TLB than 386s.
Actually, with the 4M pages, it's not a question of luck any more - they
just
Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> The one I'm currently using is an old Olivetti 386SX with 5 MB, I also
> tried two more boards, one 386SX, one 386DX, both with 8MB. All showed
> the same behavior.
I tested 2.4.0 on probably the exact same box - an Olivetti M300-05
386sx with 5MB and it came up ok,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:17:47PM +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> > Robert Kaiser wrote:
> > > if someone had pressed the reset button. The same kernel boots fine on
> > > 486 and Pentium Systems.
> > >
> > > Any ideas/suggestions ?
> >
> >
> > is "Checking if
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:17:47PM +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
if someone had pressed the reset button. The same kernel boots fine on
486 and Pentium Systems.
Any ideas/suggestions ?
is "Checking if this processor honours
Robert Kaiser wrote:
The one I'm currently using is an old Olivetti 386SX with 5 MB, I also
tried two more boards, one 386SX, one 386DX, both with 8MB. All showed
the same behavior.
I tested 2.4.0 on probably the exact same box - an Olivetti M300-05
386sx with 5MB and it came up ok,
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 03:18:41PM -0500, Brian Gerst wrote:
>
> move up to 2.4.0-testX kernels
I just tested 2.4.0-test1, it doesn't boot on the 386 with the same symptoms
as 2.4.0.
2.3.99-pre9 same.
2.3.99-pre8 is the last one that boots correctly.
There is one weird thing I notice, the
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> In the meantime, it would be helpful if anyone who has successfully
> booted a 2.4.0 kernel on a 386 could report this to the list.
>
I had no problems booting an AMD 386DX/40 with 32 megs of RAM.
I just dumped a bzImage (703K) to a floppy and it
Robert Kaiser wrote:
>> I have periodically built kernels that crashed
>> immediately at the point you mention. Usually this
>> was due to me choose configuration options that
>> were incompatible with my machine's hardware.
>
>
> You mean they crashed at the exact same statement ?
> That
mo6 wrote:
> I dug up an old amd 386 and started compiling kernels for it with gcc 2.95.2:
>
> 2.4.0 : doesn't boot, same symptoms as you, Robert, so you're not imagining
> things :-)
> 2.2.19pre6 : compiles, boots and runs poifectly
> 2.3.51 : doesn't compile
> 2.3.99-pre1 : hrm,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:17:47PM +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> > Robert Kaiser wrote:
> > > I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
> > > The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
> > > I tried three
On 10 Jan 01 at 17:00, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> > not really. Could you write a small function that just reads the kernel
> > image from the first symbol to the last one, and see whether it crashes?
> > (read it into a volatile variable to make sure GCC reads it.)
>
> I tried this: Reading the
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > So called 'sigma sigma' 386 and higher. Ie we dont support the 386 with the
> > > 32bit mul bugs.
> >
> > Is this a new thing in 2.4.0 ? Could it possibly cause a crash as
> > early as pagetable_init() ?
>
> We've never supported pre sigmasigma cpus
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> math-FPU emulation takes up quite some space in the kernel image, so this
> could indeed be the case. Could you disable any non-boot-essential
> subsystem (networking, or the serial driver, or anything else), to
> significantly reduce the image size?
>
> > So called 'sigma sigma' 386 and higher. Ie we dont support the 386 with the
> > 32bit mul bugs.
>
> Is this a new thing in 2.4.0 ? Could it possibly cause a crash as
> early as pagetable_init() ?
We've never supported pre sigmasigma cpus although someone posted a patch to
Linux 1.2 once.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> I was just wondering if the kernel size has got to do anything to do with
> this. Did you try a very very small kernel with the minimal features
> anyway?
>
I tried this: kernel is now 277KB compressed, 725KB uncomressed.
Still no effect
Hi Miles,
Thanks very much for your suggestions!
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, did you use a 2.2 series
> .config file and then run make oldconfig or did
> you build a new .config file from scratch?
No, I built it from scratch with make xconfig.
>
> I have
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Does linux cater of all the old 386 chip bugs - especially the memory
> > management oddities?
>
> So called 'sigma sigma' 386 and higher. Ie we dont support the 386 with the
> 32bit mul bugs.
Is this a new thing in 2.4.0 ? Could it possibly cause a
> Does linux cater of all the old 386 chip bugs - especially the memory
> management oddities?
So called 'sigma sigma' 386 and higher. Ie we dont support the 386 with the
32bit mul bugs.
Also a lot of 386's crash if you abuse popad instructions from user space and
there is no fix
-
To
Does linux cater of all the old 386 chip bugs - especially the memory
management oddities?
Richard Moore - RAS Project Lead - Linux Technology Centre (PISC).
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux
Office: (+44) (0)1962-817072, Mobile: (+44) (0)7768-298183
IBM UK Ltd,
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
Does linux cater of all the old 386 chip bugs - especially the memory
management oddities?
So called 'sigma sigma' 386 and higher. Ie we dont support the 386 with the
32bit mul bugs.
Is this a new thing in 2.4.0 ? Could it possibly cause a crash as
Hi Miles,
Thanks very much for your suggestions!
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
Just out of curiosity, did you use a 2.2 series
.config file and then run make oldconfig or did
you build a new .config file from scratch?
No, I built it from scratch with make xconfig.
I have
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
I was just wondering if the kernel size has got to do anything to do with
this. Did you try a very very small kernel with the minimal features
anyway?
I tried this: kernel is now 277KB compressed, 725KB uncomressed.
Still no effect :-(
So called 'sigma sigma' 386 and higher. Ie we dont support the 386 with the
32bit mul bugs.
Is this a new thing in 2.4.0 ? Could it possibly cause a crash as
early as pagetable_init() ?
We've never supported pre sigmasigma cpus although someone posted a patch to
Linux 1.2 once. You won't
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
math-FPU emulation takes up quite some space in the kernel image, so this
could indeed be the case. Could you disable any non-boot-essential
subsystem (networking, or the serial driver, or anything else), to
significantly reduce the image size?
I
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
So called 'sigma sigma' 386 and higher. Ie we dont support the 386 with the
32bit mul bugs.
Is this a new thing in 2.4.0 ? Could it possibly cause a crash as
early as pagetable_init() ?
We've never supported pre sigmasigma cpus although
On 10 Jan 01 at 17:00, Robert Kaiser wrote:
not really. Could you write a small function that just reads the kernel
image from the first symbol to the last one, and see whether it crashes?
(read it into a volatile variable to make sure GCC reads it.)
I tried this: Reading the entire
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:17:47PM +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
I tried three different 386
mo6 wrote:
I dug up an old amd 386 and started compiling kernels for it with gcc 2.95.2:
2.4.0 : doesn't boot, same symptoms as you, Robert, so you're not imagining
things :-)
2.2.19pre6 : compiles, boots and runs poifectly
2.3.51 : doesn't compile
2.3.99-pre1 : hrm, *cough*
Robert Kaiser wrote:
snip
I have periodically built kernels that crashed
immediately at the point you mention. Usually this
was due to me choose configuration options that
were incompatible with my machine's hardware.
You mean they crashed at the exact same statement ?
That would be
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
In the meantime, it would be helpful if anyone who has successfully
booted a 2.4.0 kernel on a 386 could report this to the list.
I had no problems booting an AMD 386DX/40 with 32 megs of RAM.
I just dumped a bzImage (703K) to a floppy and it booted
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 03:18:41PM -0500, Brian Gerst wrote:
move up to 2.4.0-testX kernels
I just tested 2.4.0-test1, it doesn't boot on the 386 with the same symptoms
as 2.4.0.
2.3.99-pre9 same.
2.3.99-pre8 is the last one that boots correctly.
There is one weird thing I notice, the
Does linux cater of all the old 386 chip bugs - especially the memory
management oddities?
Richard Moore - RAS Project Lead - Linux Technology Centre (PISC).
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux
Office: (+44) (0)1962-817072, Mobile: (+44) (0)7768-298183
IBM UK Ltd,
Does linux cater of all the old 386 chip bugs - especially the memory
management oddities?
So called 'sigma sigma' 386 and higher. Ie we dont support the 386 with the
32bit mul bugs.
Also a lot of 386's crash if you abuse popad instructions from user space and
there is no fix
-
To
Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
> The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
> I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get as far as
> pagetable_init() in arch/i386/mm/init.c,
Hi Rob,
Just out of curiosity, did you use a 2.2 series
.config file and then run make oldconfig or did
you build a new .config file from scratch?
I have periodically built kernels that crashed
immediately at the point you mention. Usually this
was due to me choose configuration options that
you should also try to access the mem_map variable directly, in some
simple way. Could you print out the value of mem_map btw.? [This should
rule out any compiler interaction.]
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Sorry, no ext2fs in this kernel (it is for a diskless embedded
> system). I seem to recall though that the problem at one point
> magically went away when I disabled the FPU emulation, but I have not
> been able to reproduce this recently, so I'm not
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> I have put a "halting statement" (i.e. "while(1);") after my printouts
> to make sure execution does not go any further than that point. I
> moved this halting statement ahead in the code line by line until the
> crash would occur again. So, yes, I am
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> > Now comes the amazing (to me) part: I split the above statement up into:
> >
> > temp = mk_pte_phys(__pa(vaddr), PAGE_KERNEL);
> > *pte = temp;
>
> this is almost impossible (except some really weird
On Mit, 10 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> How big is the kernel image? Are you making a zImage or bzImage?
>
I'm using bzImage. It's size is 566964 bytes.
According to System.map, Symbol _end is 0xc0252cf0. That would mean
the uncompressed kernel size would be 1387760 bytes (0xc0252cf0-0xc010),
How big is the kernel image? Are you making a zImage or bzImage?
Anuradha
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> On Mit, 10 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> >
> > How much physical memory does this box really have?
> >
>
> The one I'm currently using is an old Olivetti 386SX with 5 MB, I also
On Mit, 10 Jan 2001 you wrote:
>
> How much physical memory does this box really have?
>
The one I'm currently using is an old Olivetti 386SX with 5 MB, I also tried two
more boards, one 386SX, one 386DX, both with 8MB. All showed the same behavior.
Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> > Robert Kaiser wrote:
> > >
> > > On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> > > > Robert Kaiser wrote:
> > > > > I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
> > > > > The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Now comes the amazing (to me) part: I split the above statement up into:
>
> temp = mk_pte_phys(__pa(vaddr), PAGE_KERNEL);
> *pte = temp;
this is almost impossible (except some really weird compiler bug) - unless
the mem_map address is
** Reply to message from Robert Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 9 Jan 2001
23:17:11 +0100
> temp = mk_pte_phys(__pa(vaddr), PAGE_KERNEL);
> *pte = temp;
>
> where temp is declared "volatile pte_t". I inserted test-prints between the
> above two lines. Accoding to that, the _first_
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> Robert Kaiser wrote:
> >
> > On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> > > Robert Kaiser wrote:
> > > > I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
> > > > The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
> > > > I tried three
Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> > Robert Kaiser wrote:
> > > I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
> > > The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
> > > I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get
Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> > Robert Kaiser wrote:
> > > I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
> > > The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
> > > I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
> Robert Kaiser wrote:
> > I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
> > The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
> > I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get as far as
> > pagetable_init() in
Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
> The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
> I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get as far as
> pagetable_init() in arch/i386/mm/init.c,
Hi list,
I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get as far as
pagetable_init() in arch/i386/mm/init.c, then it falls back into the BIOS as
if
Hi list,
I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get as far as
pagetable_init() in arch/i386/mm/init.c, then it falls back into the BIOS as
if
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Hi list,
I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get as far as
pagetable_init() in arch/i386/mm/init.c, then it
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get as far as
pagetable_init() in
Robert Kaiser wrote:
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get as far as
Robert Kaiser wrote:
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get as far as
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
I tried three different 386
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Now comes the amazing (to me) part: I split the above statement up into:
temp = mk_pte_phys(__pa(vaddr), PAGE_KERNEL);
*pte = temp;
this is almost impossible (except some really weird compiler bug) - unless
the mem_map address is
On Mit, 10 Jan 2001 you wrote:
How big is the kernel image? Are you making a zImage or bzImage?
I'm using bzImage. It's size is 566964 bytes.
According to System.map, Symbol _end is 0xc0252cf0. That would mean
the uncompressed kernel size would be 1387760 bytes (0xc0252cf0-0xc010),
right
On Die, 09 Jan 2001 you wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Now comes the amazing (to me) part: I split the above statement up into:
temp = mk_pte_phys(__pa(vaddr), PAGE_KERNEL);
*pte = temp;
this is almost impossible (except some really weird compiler bug) -
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
I have put a "halting statement" (i.e. "while(1);") after my printouts
to make sure execution does not go any further than that point. I
moved this halting statement ahead in the code line by line until the
crash would occur again. So, yes, I am
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Sorry, no ext2fs in this kernel (it is for a diskless embedded
system). I seem to recall though that the problem at one point
magically went away when I disabled the FPU emulation, but I have not
been able to reproduce this recently, so I'm not
you should also try to access the mem_map variable directly, in some
simple way. Could you print out the value of mem_map btw.? [This should
rule out any compiler interaction.]
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Hi Rob,
Just out of curiosity, did you use a 2.2 series
.config file and then run make oldconfig or did
you build a new .config file from scratch?
I have periodically built kernels that crashed
immediately at the point you mention. Usually this
was due to me choose configuration options that
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Hi list,
I can't seem to get the new 2.4.0 kernel running on a 386 CPU.
The kernel was built for a 386 Processor, Math emulation has been enabled.
I tried three different 386 boards. Execution seems to get as far as
pagetable_init() in arch/i386/mm/init.c, then it
68 matches
Mail list logo
