1 |
* Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> [110725 15:33]: |
2 |
> Todd Goodman wrote: |
3 |
> > * Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com> [110725 14:43]: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> >> Todd Goodman wrote: |
6 |
> >> |
7 |
> >>> Dale (and whoever else was having problems with Firefox and X hangs,) |
8 |
> >>> |
9 |
> >>> I don't know if you've seen it but: |
10 |
> >>> |
11 |
> >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/24/54 |
12 |
> >>> |
13 |
> >>> looks like a thread that might be applicable? |
14 |
> >>> |
15 |
> >>> Todd |
16 |
> >>> |
17 |
> >>> |
18 |
> >>> |
19 |
> >>> |
20 |
> >> That does look interesting. I had a few times where mine would just |
21 |
> >> hang and I could use the SysReq keys but most of the time it just plain |
22 |
> >> paniced. |
23 |
> >> |
24 |
> > Yes, I remember that. But depending on your kernel config you could be |
25 |
> > getting a "panic" based on settings (I believe.) |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> |
29 |
> That is true. I think .39 was the one that always paniced. It seems |
30 |
> the later .38 wold sometimes give me a change to use the SysReq keys. |
31 |
> It' shard to recall now. :/ |
32 |
|
33 |
Yes, I like to keep notes of what I've tried, but hindsight is 20-20 |
34 |
|
35 |
> |
36 |
> >> I'm not subscribed so if you see something interesting, let me know. I |
37 |
> >> wish I could let them know it also causes kernel panics as well. I |
38 |
> >> suspect tho that whatever fix they come up with, it will fix it all. I |
39 |
> >> may go back to a older kernel too. lol That may work for a temp fix |
40 |
> >> anyway. |
41 |
> >> |
42 |
> > I'll let you know if I see anything that looks related. It would be |
43 |
> > interesting if going back to 2.6.38 is a temp fix for you. I know you'd |
44 |
> > tried older kernels before but... |
45 |
> > |
46 |
> > As someone else mentioned, you can certainly report it. However, it |
47 |
> > would be very helpful if you can get the panic information. I know it's |
48 |
> > difficult with X hanging and needing X to reproduce the problem but |
49 |
> > SSHing to the machine and/or a netconsole might allow something to be |
50 |
> > seen. And the panic information would likely be quite illuminating. |
51 |
> > |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> |
54 |
> I'm not subscribed there and that is a very high traffic list. I did |
55 |
> take a look at the option of subscribing tho. I also tried to ssh into |
56 |
> my rig from my old rig, it refused. It couldn't even find my box. It |
57 |
> worked fine after I rebooted tho. |
58 |
|
59 |
Yes it is very high traffic. |
60 |
|
61 |
You don't need to subscribe to post though and it's quite common to |
62 |
mention at the end that you're not subscribed and request direct email |
63 |
responses. |
64 |
|
65 |
As far as ssh'ing in, I'd suggest doing it before the problem manifests |
66 |
and trying to get console output on your screen. |
67 |
|
68 |
> |
69 |
> |
70 |
> >> Thanks very much for the link. At least it is not just me and they know |
71 |
> >> about it now. |
72 |
> >> |
73 |
> > Yes, though hearing from more than one person with the issue might help |
74 |
> > get it solved quicker. There may be similarities between your machines |
75 |
> > that point he finger at a certain area... |
76 |
> > |
77 |
> > Todd |
78 |
> > |
79 |
> > |
80 |
> >> Dale |
81 |
> >> |
82 |
> >> :-) :-) |
83 |
> >> |
84 |
> |
85 |
> Yea, having more info would be helpful but it appears that more than I |
86 |
> have has already been given. I may see if I can email someone directly |
87 |
> or something. Maybe that will work, if I don't go to spam or something. |
88 |
|
89 |
I'd suggest emailing the list. Emailing someone directly before that |
90 |
might be considered quite rude. |
91 |
|
92 |
> |
93 |
> Is this related to a specific nic driver? I wasn't able to really tell |
94 |
> much from all the error messages they posted. I still haven't tried a |
95 |
> different nic. I sort of been busy. |
96 |
|
97 |
No, there were a lot of IRQ changes. It could impact pretty much any |
98 |
driver though perhaps it's due to an incorrect assumption in a specific |
99 |
driver that no longer holds after the IRQ rework. |
100 |
|
101 |
Todd |
102 |
|
103 |
> |
104 |
> Dale |
105 |
> |
106 |
> :-) :-) |