Bug 5439 - Increasing RAM causes Oops
Summary: Increasing RAM causes Oops
Status: REJECTED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: ACPI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Config-Tables (show other bugs)
Hardware: i386 Linux
: P2 normal
Assignee: acpi_config-tables
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-10-14 03:03 UTC by Joshua N Pritikin
Modified: 2005-10-17 21:48 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Kernel Version: 2.6.13
Subsystem:
Regression: ---
Bisected commit-id:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Description Joshua N Pritikin 2005-10-14 03:03:55 UTC 
Most recent kernel where this bug did not occur: 2.6.10
Distribution: Debian testing
Hardware Environment: Acer Travelmate 2312

Problem Description:

Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: Oops: 0002 [#1]
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: Modules linked in: ac battery psmouse pcspkr
ehci_hcd snd_intel8x0 snd_intel8x0m snd_ac97_codec snd_pcm snd_timer snd
soundcore snd_page_alloc ohci_hcd sis900 mii yenta_socket rsrc_nonstatic evdev
p4_clockmod speedstep_lib nvram usblp usbcore ide_cd cdrom capability commoncap
sis_agp
sis drm agpgart unix
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: CPU:    0
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: EIP:    0060:[acpi_os_write_memory+33/72]
Not tainted VLI
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: EFLAGS: 00010046   (2.6.13-b4)
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: EIP is at acpi_os_write_memory+0x21/0x48
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: eax: 00000040   ebx: 00000000   ecx: 00000008
  edx: c03474b8
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: esi: 00000008   edi: 00000040   ebp: c03474b8
  esp: ea8fdc3c
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: ds: 007b   es: 007b   ss: 0068
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: Process modprobe (pid: 2712,
threadinfo=ea8fc000 task=eb4a1a00)
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: Stack: c020fe8e c03474b8 00000000 00000040
00000008 00000000 ebd0ab80 ebd0aba8
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:        00000246 c021bcfc 00000008 00000040
ebd0aba8 40d0ab80 00000000 00000040
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:        00000040 00000000 c1658d40 c021c742
ebd0ab80 00000040 ea8fdcac eb4a1b28
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel: Call Trace:
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_hw_low_level_write+55/89]
acpi_hw_low_level_write+0x37/0x59
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ec_polling_read+143/204]
acpi_ec_polling_read+0x8f/0xcc
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ec_space_handler+175/432]
acpi_ec_space_handler+0xaf/0x1b0
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ec_space_handler+0/432]
acpi_ec_space_handler+0x0/0x1b0
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ev_address_space_dispatch+210/296]
acpi_ev_address_space_dispatch+0xd2/0x128
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ex_access_region+71/148]
acpi_ex_access_region+0x47/0x94
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ex_field_datum_io+262/414]
acpi_ex_field_datum_io+0x106/0x19e
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ex_extract_from_field+137/543]
acpi_ex_extract_from_field+0x89/0x21f
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ut_create_internal_object_dbg+27/108]
acpi_ut_create_internal_object_dbg+0x1b/0x6c
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ex_read_data_from_field+272/322]
acpi_ex_read_data_from_field+0x110/0x142
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ex_resolve_node_to_value+169/220]
acpi_ex_resolve_node_to_value+0xa9/0xdc
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ex_resolve_to_value+64/75]
acpi_ex_resolve_to_value+0x40/0x4b
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ex_resolve_operands+483/850]
acpi_ex_resolve_operands+0x1e3/0x352
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ds_exec_end_op+164/818]
acpi_ds_exec_end_op+0xa4/0x332
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ps_parse_loop+1349/2142]
acpi_ps_parse_loop+0x545/0x85e
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_ps_parse_aml+78/508]
acpi_ps_parse_aml+0x4e/0x1fc
Oct 14 14:04:24 holymother kernel:  [acpi_psx_execute+346/448]
acpi_psx_execute+0x15a/0x1c0

Steps to reproduce:

What is strange is that 2.6.13 boots fine with 256M of RAM.  However, I tried
increasing the memory to 512M and 768M, both Oops.  If I downgrade to 2.6.10
then I can boot with 512M or 768M (as well as 256M).

What more diagnostics can I provide?
Comment 1 Joshua N Pritikin 2005-10-14 09:49:00 UTC 
2.6.11 is OK.  2.6.12 is not compiling cleanly.  I can try again if it is important.
Comment 2 Shaohua 2005-10-17 18:52:06 UTC 
Did you override DSDT?
Comment 3 Joshua N Pritikin 2005-10-17 21:45:58 UTC 
Yes, the DSDT is overrided.  Since I am using the same tweaked DSDT with all of
the kernels (2.6.10, 2.6.11, 2.6.13), I assumed that the DSDT wasn't causing the
problem.  Am I wrong?
Comment 4 Shaohua 2005-10-17 21:48:51 UTC 
You should create a new modified DSDT after you upgrade your RAM.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.