From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 5 16:44:05 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D9016A421 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:44:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pho@holm.cc) Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.5.9]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A11513C483 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:44:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pho@holm.cc) Received: (qmail 71246 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 16:44:02 -0000 Received: from 83.95.197.164 (HELO peter.osted.lan) (83.95.197.164) by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 16:44:02 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 83.95.197.164 Received: from peter.osted.lan (localhost.osted.lan [127.0.0.1]) by peter.osted.lan (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l55Gi2oZ021525; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 18:44:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from pho@peter.osted.lan) Received: (from pho@localhost) by peter.osted.lan (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id l55Gi29q021524; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 18:44:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from pho) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 18:44:02 +0200 From: Peter Holm To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20070605164402.GA18091@peter.osted.lan> References: <20070604183419.GA73268@peter.osted.lan> <20070605043758.GA99622@peter.osted.lan> <46652286.2040006@root.org> <200706051027.29879.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706051027.29879.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possible ACPI relared panic with Tyan S2720 X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:44:05 -0000 On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:27:29AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 05 June 2007 04:44:54 am Nate Lawson wrote: > > Peter Holm wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:45:23PM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote: > > >> This is a really confusing issue. All the trace you have shows is that > > >> it occurs while transitioning the system from legacy to ACPI mode. > > >> Unfortunately, the details of what is going on are hidden in the BIOS > > >> since that write to a port triggers an SMI and the BIOS does the rest. > > >> > > >> However, it seems like the BIOS is reserving more memory, using memory > > >> it didn't reserve, or FreeBSD is using memory we shouldn't. John, any > > >> insight on the SMAP output? > > >> > > >>> SMAP type=01 base=0000000000000000 len=000000000009fc00 > > >>> SMAP type=02 base=000000000009fc00 len=0000000000000400 > > >>> SMAP type=02 base=00000000000e0000 len=0000000000020000 > > >>> SMAP type=01 base=0000000000100000 len=000000003fef0000 > > >>> SMAP type=03 base=000000003fff0000 len=000000000000f000 > > >>> SMAP type=04 base=000000003ffff000 len=0000000000001000 > > >>> SMAP type=02 base=00000000fec00000 len=0000000000100000 > > >>> SMAP type=02 base=00000000fee00000 len=0000000000001000 > > >>> SMAP type=02 base=00000000fff80000 len=0000000000080000 > > >> Peter, can you figure out what phys address is getting overwritten? > > >> Seems like it's the loader that sets up the module list and the loader's > > >> allocator may be using RAM it shouldn't. > > >> > > > > > > If I did it right (I used a vtophys() on the address): > > > > > > Address of mod->name(if_tun): 0xc3eed5ec, phys: 0x985ec > > > > So it's somewhere near 620K and the first region goes to 640K - 1 K. > > The last 1 K is type 2 (reserved). Nothing seems to show why switching > > to acpi mode results in an overwrite of data at 620K. I'm not sure > > where to look. > > > > There should be some way to write a guard pattern to that area but I'll > > have to think about it a bit first. Can you see if a BIOS update is > > available and try it out? What about seeing if you can pre-alloc (by > > hacking loader's SMAP code to reserve more of the first 640 K) and > > writing a pattern there, then verifying it at various points during boot > > to be sure we know exactly where the BIOS is writing? > > Err, the loader should not be storing modules that low. Did you kldload the > module or load it via the loader? > I did not load the module. It's loaded automatically by the loader. This is my /boot/loader.conf kernel_options="-D" machdep.hyperthreading_allowed=1 hw.ata.atapi_dma=0 -- Peter