Andrew Clayton noticed this regression in 2.4.26-pre5 (20040311) as compared to 2.4.25-pre4 (20040220) Fujitsu-Siemens C-1020 laptop running Fedora Core 1 $ grep ACPI 2.4.26-pre5.dmesg ACPI: Subsystem revision 20040311 ACPI-0433: *** Warning: Existing references (4) on node being deleted (c129e660) ACPI-0433: *** Warning: Existing references (9) on node being deleted (c12aeda0) ACPI: IRQ9 SCI: Edge set to Level Trigger. ACPI-0097: *** Error: Unable to initialize general purpose events, AE_NOT_FOUND ACPI: Unable to start the ACPI Interpreter ACPI-0433: *** Warning: Existing references (65419) on node being deleted (c129e4e0) PCI: ACPI tables contain no PCI IRQ routing entries
Created attachment 2376 [details] 2.4.26-pre5.dmesg
Created attachment 2377 [details] 2.4.26-pre4.dmesg
Created attachment 2378 [details] lspci -vv
Created attachment 2379 [details] config
This appears to be a regression in ACPICA 20040311. Please attach the output from acpidmp, available in /usr/sbin/, or in pmtools: http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/utils/
Created attachment 2381 [details] Output of acpidmp command under 2.4.26-pre5
Thanks for the acpidmp output. I verified that 20040311 tools cleanly disassemble/re-assemble the AML -- so no _static_ errors. I expect that Bob may have to simulate this one, and if that fails may need a debugging execution trace run on the hardware. I don't suppose you've got a serial port on your laptop?
Yes, I do have a serial port on it. :) I can easily hook it upto my workstation to obtain any needed output.
This one looks kind of nasty. you might try using the new "serialized" feature of the latest ACPI CA integration. Bob
OK, how might I do this?
Looks like a PCI traversal issue, so I won't be able to reproduce it. Need the trace. ACPI: Subsystem revision 20040311 PCI: PCI BIOS revision 2.10 entry at 0xe8964, last bus=1 PCI: Using configuration type 1 ACPI-0433: *** Warning: Existing references (4) on node being deleted (c129e660) ACPI-0433: *** Warning: Existing references (9) on node being deleted (c12aeda0) ACPI: IRQ9 SCI: Edge set to Level Trigger. ACPI-0097: *** Error: Unable to initialize general purpose events, AE_NOT_FOUND ACPI: Unable to start the ACPI Interpreter ACPI-0433: *** Warning: Existing references (65419) on node being deleted (c129e4e0) PCI: Probing PCI hardware PCI: ACPI tables contain no PCI IRQ routing entries
The serialization feature is enabled with bootflag "acpi_serialize" couldn't hurt to also try "acpi_osi=" to return the AML to old behaviour, though I don't recall seeing anything in your AML that would depend on it. thanks, -Len
Created attachment 2400 [details] patch to enable ACPI_DEBUG_HIGH Please patch your kernel with this 1-liner and build with CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG=y then capture the serial console of the failure. The messages will be very verbose, so be sure that the serial console is logged to a file. thanks, -Len
Comment on attachment 2400 [details] patch to enable ACPI_DEBUG_HIGH note: verbose debug patch will take _hours_ to complete. so crank up that baud rate and let it run all night!;-)
lol, I think this file is going to be pretty big (even compressed) what should I do with it when it's finished? Cheers, Andrew
heh, it's been going for nearly 15 hours and I have about 510MB of log file so far. I don't know what it's doing, but it's doing a lot of it ;) When it finishes, will the kernel just resume booting as normal? Cheers, Andrew
510 Mb sounds like a bit much, it should be about 10Mb. It may be in some awful kind off loop. Bob
Yeah... it does seem to be just doing the same thing over and over... 23 hours and 805MB of log. Maybe I should just stop it? Cheers, Andrew
OK, After about 24 hours and 833MB of log, I stopped it.....
If you can open the file :-), I would examine it for some kind of looping behavior and maybe we can narrow it down from there. Bob
Created attachment 2417 [details] Snapshot of ACPI debug output Hi, Not sure what I'd be looking for in the file to indicate a loop, but for instance in the full log I captured there are 1718 occurences of "Offset Value". I've attached the first 15MB (bzip2'd) of the log output. Hopefully you'll find it useful... Cheers, Andrew
Hi, I've just tried 2.4.26-rc1 and that seems to have fixed the problem. (2.4.26-pre6 was the same as 2.4.26-pre5). Cheers, Andrew
Never a good feeling when a failure goes away for no apparent reason... I wonder if there was a build issue. Any chance you can "make clean" the original failing release and see if it is really still there? thanks, -Len
Yes you are right! built a kernel from a clean 2.4.26-pre5 tree and it's fine. I'll bear that in mind if something similar happens again. Sorry for the noise :( Cheers, Andrew