Hi,
My old motherboard and processor bit the dust at the end of last week and so I've fitted a Semperon (Athlon changed their x86 processor names to Semperon - Aths are now all x64) on a Gigabyte GA7N400 board.
Now, if I have the processor set at 1GHz, it is recognised as an Athlon and will boot happily. If I switch it to be the 2.4GHz Semperon that it is, I get kernel panics and some very odd noises from the machine itself.
Any ideas if there is a problem with Semperon processors and the kernel or is there some way I can get around this with a boot line fix?
I'm on rawhide and the 1109 kernel.
TTFN
Paul
What kind of odd noises, and how do you think they relate to the problem? If your computer makes funny noises at a higher clock speed it suggests a hardware problem more than something in the kernel ( or at least based on the details you have supplied ).
In the case that you don't believe that it is a Hardware problem, have you tried booting something else? For example a Linux bood CD, windows install CD or something else to see what kind of result that produces.
If there was a problem with the kernel, you would expect to find it at all clock speeds.
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 00:00 +0000, Paul wrote:
Hi,
My old motherboard and processor bit the dust at the end of last week and so I've fitted a Semperon (Athlon changed their x86 processor names to Semperon - Aths are now all x64) on a Gigabyte GA7N400 board.
Now, if I have the processor set at 1GHz, it is recognised as an Athlon and will boot happily. If I switch it to be the 2.4GHz Semperon that it is, I get kernel panics and some very odd noises from the machine itself.
Any ideas if there is a problem with Semperon processors and the kernel or is there some way I can get around this with a boot line fix?
I'm on rawhide and the 1109 kernel.
TTFN
Paul
fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
Hi,
What kind of odd noises, and how do you think they relate to the problem? If your computer makes funny noises at a higher clock speed it suggests a hardware problem more than something in the kernel ( or at least based on the details you have supplied ).
It's a two tone oscillating noise and then the machine shuts down. Sometimes it doesn't happen, then I get kernel panics.
In the case that you don't believe that it is a Hardware problem, have you tried booting something else? For example a Linux bood CD, windows install CD or something else to see what kind of result that produces.
Boot CD - kernel panic. What's a Windows CD? Don't have anything like the polluting my office here ;-)
If there was a problem with the kernel, you would expect to find it at all clock speeds.
True. I just am not sure if it's because at 1GHz, the chip identifies as an Athlon and at 2.4GHz, it's a Semperon which could be causing the problem.
TTFN
Paul
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Paul wrote:
Now, if I have the processor set at 1GHz, it is recognised as an Athlon and will boot happily. If I switch it to be the 2.4GHz Semperon that it is, I get kernel panics and some very odd noises from the machine itself.
Are you sure its a 2.4GHz proc - and not Semperon 2400 (1.66GHz)?
Satish
Hi,
Now, if I have the processor set at 1GHz, it is recognised as an Athlon and will boot happily. If I switch it to be the 2.4GHz Semperon that it is, I get kernel panics and some very odd noises from the machine itself.
Are you sure its a 2.4GHz proc - and not Semperon 2400 (1.66GHz)?
I was told it was a 2.4GHz processor, so that's what I'm working off. There is an auto clock setting on the board which also reports it as being that.
TTFN
Paul
Paul kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika torstai, 27. tammikuuta 2005 09:59):
Are you sure its a 2.4GHz proc - and not Semperon 2400 (1.66GHz)?
I was told it was a 2.4GHz processor, so that's what I'm working off.
The fastest Socket A Semprons listed on AMD's site are running at 2.0GHz and are labelled "Sempron 3000+". Your chip is a Sempron 2400+ running at 1.66GHz (FSB 333MHz).
Hi,
I was told it was a 2.4GHz processor, so that's what I'm working off.
The fastest Socket A Semprons listed on AMD's site are running at 2.0GHz and are labelled "Sempron 3000+". Your chip is a Sempron 2400+ running at 1.66GHz (FSB 333MHz).
Euw! That's slower than the 1.7GHz Celeron I had in before! (Well, on numbers at least!)
TTFN
Paul
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 18:35, Paul wrote:
Hi,
I was told it was a 2.4GHz processor, so that's what I'm working off.
The fastest Socket A Semprons listed on AMD's site are running at 2.0GHz and are labelled "Sempron 3000+". Your chip is a Sempron 2400+ running at 1.66GHz (FSB 333MHz).
Euw! That's slower than the 1.7GHz Celeron I had in before! (Well, on numbers at least!)
Ahem, the days of just comparing the clock frequency on consumer CPU's to identify the best one are long gone mate ;)
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/
"After a short look at our benchmark results the conclusion is clear: AMD's Sempron is able to outperform Celeron D in most applications."
-- Tarjei
Hi,
"After a short look at our benchmark results the conclusion is clear: AMD's Sempron is able to outperform Celeron D in most applications."
Except one on my machine - actually working!
It has the updated BIOS for the semperon. If I turn the clock down so it's identified as a 1500+ rather than 2400+, it gets through happily to the desktop and works. Bang it back to being a 2400+ and it won't hit the desktop.
Remove rhgb and things go a bit further (roughly boots halfway - gets to applying iptables and then gives that annoying 2 tone oscillating noise). Put it back on and as soon as it gets past mounting the drives, annoying 2 tone noise.
Doesn't matter which kernel version it is either.
TTFN
Paul
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:09, Paul Johnson wrote:
Hi,
"After a short look at our benchmark results the conclusion is clear: AMD's Sempron is able to outperform Celeron D in most applications."
Except one on my machine - actually working!
It has the updated BIOS for the semperon. If I turn the clock down so it's identified as a 1500+ rather than 2400+, it gets through happily to the desktop and works. Bang it back to being a 2400+ and it won't hit the desktop.
Remove rhgb and things go a bit further (roughly boots halfway - gets to applying iptables and then gives that annoying 2 tone oscillating noise). Put it back on and as soon as it gets past mounting the drives, annoying 2 tone noise.
Doesn't matter which kernel version it is either.
Sounds very strange indeed Paul.
Things to try maybe:
- Tried resetting the CMOS and configuring the BIOS from scratch? Might be some obscure setting left over from when the Celeron was living on the board.
- Can you run memtest86+? This could also be a faulty DIMM (or maybe even the motherboard itself)
- What's the core temperature on the CPU (if this is available in the BIOS)? Could be bad cooling.
I've never come across this "2 tone oscillating noise" you mention though - are you able to identify it's exact source?
Best of luck, -- Tarjei
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 02:55:27PM +0100, Tarjei Knapstad wrote:
I've never come across this "2 tone oscillating noise" you mention though - are you able to identify it's exact source?
Sounds to me like the motherboard high-temp alarm.
That got me thinking - just checked, current CPU temperature 100oC. Me thinks the problem may be found...
TTFN
Paul
Paul Johnson wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 02:55:27PM +0100, Tarjei Knapstad wrote:
I've never come across this "2 tone oscillating noise" you mention though - are you able to identify it's exact source?
Sounds to me like the motherboard high-temp alarm.
That got me thinking - just checked, current CPU temperature 100oC. Me thinks the problem may be found...
Just a note, But I've encountered this problem on several motherboards and laptops with FC3 where the CPU fan is turned off, causing overtemp and shutdown. This happens when using the FC3 installed kernel image.
This is not isolated to Semperon, one of the systems was a Pentium-3.
Rebuilding the kernel (stock from kernel.org after clearing all FC3 kernel settings) resolved it.
I never reported because I didn't think anybody would believe me...
ron
Em Sex, 2005-01-28 às 15:43 -0600, RON FLORY escreveu:
That got me thinking - just checked, current CPU temperature 100oC. Me thinks the problem may be found...
Just a note, But I've encountered this problem on several motherboards and laptops with FC3 where the CPU fan is turned off, causing overtemp and shutdown. This happens when using the FC3 installed kernel image. This is not isolated to Semperon, one of the systems was a Pentium-3. Rebuilding the kernel (stock from kernel.org after clearing all FC3 kernel settings) resolved it. I never reported because I didn't think anybody would believe me...
I remember those "soft-coolers" for windows 98. Someone once said me they weren't necessary for linux, since kernel does that.
What they used to do was set the instruction halt (or something alike) when the processor was idle. Having setiathome running forever will make those softcoolers only a waste of memory.
I don't know what could be changed so fedora don't have this.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 07:41:29AM -0300, Alexandre Strube wrote:
What they used to do was set the instruction halt (or something alike) when the processor was idle. Having setiathome running forever will make those softcoolers only a waste of memory. I don't know what could be changed so fedora don't have this.
HZ is now 1000 instead of 100. This means the CPU is woken up 10 times more often from its halted state.
Em Sáb, 2005-01-29 às 10:55 -0500, Matthew Miller escreveu:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 07:41:29AM -0300, Alexandre Strube wrote:
What they used to do was set the instruction halt (or something alike) when the processor was idle. Having setiathome running forever will make those softcoolers only a waste of memory. I don't know what could be changed so fedora don't have this.
HZ is now 1000 instead of 100. This means the CPU is woken up 10 times more often from its halted state.
Why?
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 02:26 -0300, Alexandre Strube wrote:
Em Sáb, 2005-01-29 às 10:55 -0500, Matthew Miller escreveu:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 07:41:29AM -0300, Alexandre Strube wrote:
What they used to do was set the instruction halt (or something alike) when the processor was idle. Having setiathome running forever will make those softcoolers only a waste of memory. I don't know what could be changed so fedora don't have this.
HZ is now 1000 instead of 100. This means the CPU is woken up 10 times more often from its halted state.
Why?
the theory seems to be that HZ=1000 gives a better interactive response. (you can measure a lot of things better with a 1ms sample period than with a 10ms sample period). Another reason is that with HZ=1000 userspace can sleep more accurate intervals, which is especially helpful for video playback (if the least you can sleep is 20ms, doing 60Hz playback sucks, but if you can do 2ms in 1ms increments you get a lot better)
I'm not so convinced either way to be honest; for a while I had HZ=100 patched into the kernel, but people complained so I set it back to 1000 way back. Now that I have a laptop with powersaving I think I'll build myself a kernel with HZ=100 again.
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
the theory seems to be that HZ=1000 gives a better interactive response. (you can measure a lot of things better with a 1ms sample period than with a 10ms sample period). Another reason is that with HZ=1000 userspace can sleep more accurate intervals, which is especially helpful for video playback (if the least you can sleep is 20ms, doing 60Hz playback sucks, but if you can do 2ms in 1ms increments you get a lot better)
I'm not so convinced either way to be honest; for a while I had HZ=100 patched into the kernel, but people complained so I set it back to 1000 way back. Now that I have a laptop with powersaving I think I'll build myself a kernel with HZ=100 again.
I never understood the kernel timer concept, why not build a wakeup list and sleep exactly the time to the next event??
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:05:47PM +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote:
I never understood the kernel timer concept, why not build a wakeup list and sleep exactly the time to the next event??
someone needs to kick you into waking..... and that is the timer irq
yes, but you may set the timer to the next wakeup event, you really want to wakeup.
"HH" == Harald Hoyer harald@redhat.com writes:
HH> I never understood the kernel timer concept, why not build a HH> wakeup list and sleep exactly the time to the next event??
It's been worked on, but getting it right is very difficult. See the VST patches at http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
There are questions as to whether the overhead of constantly reprogramming the timer interrupt source is worth the savings. Plus there are hardware issues and assumptions about timer frequency in the kernel. These should be getting better with time.
- J<
Em Sex, 2005-01-28 às 14:55 +0100, Tarjei Knapstad escreveu:
- Tried resetting the CMOS and configuring the BIOS from scratch? Might
be some obscure setting left over from when the Celeron was living on the board.
Which motherboard is this, than can use both celeron and sempron processors? I'm really curious with that.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Alexandre Strube wrote:
Em Sex, 2005-01-28 às 14:55 +0100, Tarjei Knapstad escreveu:
- Tried resetting the CMOS and configuring the BIOS from scratch? Might
be some obscure setting left over from when the Celeron was living on the board.
Which motherboard is this, than can use both celeron and sempron processors? I'm really curious with that.
I would like to know also. I've never heard of a celeron + sempron motherboard.
-Dan
Hi,
I've never come across this "2 tone oscillating noise" you mention though - are you able to identify it's exact source?
Fan needed re-seating (blob of white compound fixed the problem). Working a treat now :-)
TTFN
Paul
Paul wrote:
Hi,
My old motherboard and processor bit the dust at the end of last week and so I've fitted a Semperon (Athlon changed their x86 processor names to Semperon - Aths are now all x64) on a Gigabyte GA7N400 board.
Now, if I have the processor set at 1GHz, it is recognised as an Athlon and will boot happily. If I switch it to be the 2.4GHz Semperon that it is, I get kernel panics and some very odd noises from the machine itself.
Did you update the bios ? After AMD released the Sempron line , most manufacturers released bios updates to properly recognize those new processors.. maybe when you set it to 2.4 , you're in fact doing a heavy overclock (making it almost an athlon 3200+) , which *could* be the explanation for the noises...
-- Pedro Macedo
Hi,
Did you update the bios ? After AMD released the Sempron line , most manufacturers released bios updates to properly recognize those new processors.. maybe when you set it to 2.4 , you're in fact doing a heavy overclock (making it almost an athlon 3200+) , which *could* be the explanation for the noises...
I've not updated the BIOS (I imagine I'd need to grab it from the Gigabyte website). I'll give that a whizz.
TTFN
Paul
-
Aaron Scott -
Alexandre Strube -
Arjan van de Ven -
Chuck Anderson -
Dan Hollis -
Harald Hoyer -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Markku Kolkka -
Matthew Miller -
Paul F. Johnson -
Pedro Fernandes Macedo -
ron flory -
Satish Balay -
Tarjei Knapstad