[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [rtl] RTAI: lockcpu
- To: Erwin.Rol@q-soft-engineering.com
- Subject: Re: [rtl] RTAI: lockcpu
- From: huib <huib@presidency.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 16:44:53 +0100
- Cc: rtl@rtlinux.org
- In-Reply-To: <3A265286.77299F13@q-soft-engineering.com>
- References: <382558103.975515176109.JavaMail.root@web651-mc><3.0.2.32.20001130122648.00885e60@linuxserver><3.0.2.32.20001130140332.00885e00@linuxserver>
At 02:13 PM 11/30/00 +0100, you wrote:
>> >I had weird problems with my dual p166MMX on a gigabyte board, the
>> >scsi controler lost interupts and other weird stuff.
>> >
>> >When switching to 2.4.x (normal linux kernel) i saw in my log files
>> >endless warringings about APIC errors, those aren't logged in the 2.2.x
>> >kernel.
>> >
>> >I read somewhere (dunno which mailing list) that someboards have
>> >problems
>> >with noise on the inter processor APIC lines that cause invalid commands
>> >to arrive at the APIC's.
>> >
>> >if you ever have tried a 2.4.x kernel you might take a look in yer log
>> >files,
>> >if you never have tried a 2.4.x kernel i sugest you do and look in the
>> >log files
>> >if everything is working ok.
>>
>> The bp6 is known for those APIC errors, i read it somewhere.
>> If the lockcpu example is stressing the mainboard in a way
>> causing extra APIC errors, it could be the answer.
>
>Ok i didn't knew that, it was just a suggestion that those APIC
>error might be the problem.
>
>>
>> I think I chould try a 2.4 kernel.
>> But there is no lockcpu example with RTAI for 2.4.
>
>Just was an idea so you could check if (no realtime linux needed) you
>have
>those APIC errors, but it seems not needed when you already know that
I just tried the 2.4.0-test11 kernel, but no APIC errors at
all. Must be something else.
I also tried the 2.2.16 kernel, no difference.
huib