From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Tue Apr 24 14:01:40 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561B9FA5E5F for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:01:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from petefrench@ingresso.co.uk) Received: from constantine.ingresso.co.uk (unknown [IPv6:2a02:b90:3002:411::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 972A96B09F; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:01:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from petefrench@ingresso.co.uk) Received: from dilbert.london-internal.ingresso.co.uk ([10.64.50.6]) by constantine.ingresso.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1fAyVk-000L5K-1W; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:01:36 +0000 Subject: Re: Ryzen issues on FreeBSD ? (with sort of workaround) To: Mike Tancsa , nimrodl@gmail.com Cc: truckman@freebsd.org, eric@vangyzen.net, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd@hda3.com, avg@freebsd.org References: <59b435cf-f4fb-0cc8-3bd0-0765ac0592da@sentex.net> From: Pete French Message-ID: <84898b9f-991c-420a-3ebd-f8c4ad9915e1@ingresso.co.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:01:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <59b435cf-f4fb-0cc8-3bd0-0765ac0592da@sentex.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:01:40 -0000 On 24/04/2018 14:56, Mike Tancsa wrote: > I was doing the tests with bhyve, and the iperf tests were between VMs > on the same box. That seems to trigger it fairly quickly. The Epyc took > a bit more work, but I could reliable do it there too. Well, I ranh the iperf tests between real machine for 24 hours and that worked fine. I also then spun up a Virtualbox with Win10 in it, and ran iuperf to there at the same time as doing it betwene real machines, and also did a full virus scan to exercise the disc. the idea being to replicate Mondays lockup. But its all fine - the only differece being that I have disabled SMT again. Do you get lockup-s with SMT disabled ? I dint have any experince with bhyve and dont have the tiime to start learning right now, hence me testing with VB, which I already have pa nd running. I can repeat with SMt on again to veiry that it does then lock up. All very odd though - am pleased its stable, but dissapinted at the amout of stuff I have had to turn off to get it to that state. -pete.