Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:22:35 +0000 From: Adrian Wontroba <aw1@stade.co.uk> To: Andy Farkas <andy@bradfieldprichard.com.au> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: APIC: Previous IPI is stuck Message-ID: <20041115082235.A82851@titus.hanley.stade.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20041115163209.W86833@bpgate.speednet.com.au>; from andy@bradfieldprichard.com.au on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:49:56PM %2B1100 References: <20041115045912.A79200@titus.hanley.stade.co.uk> <20041115163209.W86833@bpgate.speednet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:49:56PM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote: > [freebsd.org is rejecting my email (cant find hostname) > so please feel free to copy this to the list] So quoted in full. > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Adrian Wontroba wrote: > ... > > The practice is that it it has now crashed three times in a couple of > > days with "panic: APIC: Previous IPI is stuck", the most recent one > > dragging me out from home early in a Monday morning. > > /me raises hand > > I still get panics too (5.3-STABLE cvsup'd last thursday). > At one stage I thought it was fixed, but I was wrong. > My box does not reboot itself either. > > > Over in current there are a couple of threads starting in late September > > where a few people are suffering this problem. Like them, I'm using an > > old (1997) Pentium Pro multiprocessor, in my case a 4 way Fujitsu M700. > > > > The machine is running with the SMP kernel (ie GENERIC + SMP), 4BSD > > scheduler, without preemption. > > Robert Watson has said it happens on his 4-way xeon box, > so its not the "old hardware" thats to blame. (My box is > an old Dell quad-ppro too). Something changed in the code > around the end of August this year. > > > I've set kern.sched.ipiwakeup.enabled=0 and crossed my fingers. > > Doesn't help. I already tried. Panic will still happen. Ah. Will it last the day I wonder? > > I'm a SMP novice. Would the machine become stable if I switched to a > > non-SMP kernel? Reliability is more important than speed in this case, > > and the opportunity for experimentation close to zero. Creditability > > has already been damaged by the gvinum RAID5 experience (8-( > > A UP kernel will probably run forever. The IPI panic can > only happen on SMP kernels. Thanks. I'll switch back to GENERIC. > > I'm not knocking 5.3 - in all other respects it seems wonderful. > > I'm not knocking 5.3 either, but it seems to its not quite > stable. Its more of ".0" release, where things are still > getting ironed out (like gvinum, which I also have problems > with). "RELENG_4: Time to die" - for all kinds of good reasons. It was time for 5-STABLE. The future release plan looks promising, but there is still the age old problem - how do you get the more of the user population to try out and find the problems in new versions before they acquire -RELEASE status? "Mea culpa" - I no longer have a "crash box". Time to get my mail off my own PPro (uniprocessor) box to free it up as such. If I had done this, I would have run into the vinum / gvinum issues in a less embarrassing fashion. > Stephan, you mentioned that the IPI code needs rewriting in order to > fix this problem... how's it going? > > - andyf -- Adrian Wontroba
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041115082235.A82851>