xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.FC3.13 appears to not like multiprocessors [Archive]

View Full Version : xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.FC3.13 appears to not like multiprocessors

Seth Alford

31st March 2005, 04:30 AM

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

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Thomas Cameron

31st March 2005, 05:10 AM

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

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Brian Gaynor

31st March 2005, 05:20 AM

> -----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:
>
> 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?
>

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

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Seth Alford

31st March 2005, 09:40 AM

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:
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> 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

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Rahul Sundaram

31st March 2005, 09:40 AM

Hi

> 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."

the fedora packages dont differ much from upstream but its advisable
to report them in bugzilla.redhat.com anyway

--
Regards,
Rahul Sundaram

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Paul Howarth

31st March 2005, 09:50 AM

Warren Togami

31st March 2005, 10:59 AM

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

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list