Slashdot Mirror
Major Linux/Athlon CPU bug discovered
GeorgeFrancisco writes "I recently installed the nVidia drivers so I could play TuxRacer on my Athlon. Problem is it kept inexplicably hanging Linux. Now I know why. The CPU bug affects Athlon/Duron/Athlon MP AGP users. Fortunately there's a way around it, and: "Alan [Cox] is going to try to add some kind of Athlon/AGP CPU bug detection code to the kernel so that it will be able to auto-downgrade to 4K pages when necessary." Read more on the Gentoo Linux site."
There was a Win2k bug a while back that did the exact same thing, and you had to install a "LargePageMinimum" patch for it to not crash. Is this the Linux equivilant of that? And if so, how come it has taken so long to surface and fix?
Rather, AMD fixed it for microsoft, they made the w2k patch but didn't release a linux patch.
The site seems to be down. However, last week, I contacted nVidia about this problem on my two dual Ahtlon MP workstations (random hangs when OpenGL is invoked). So the quick answer is you can
Boot your system with following option on your kernel command line: "mem=nopentium"
or
Disable AGP in XFree86 config (i.e. Option "NvAGP" "0" in the "Devices" section).
nVidia clued me into the first approach about a week and a half ago. It made my system completely stable. However, there was still some texture flakiness in some OpenGL applications. Since my workstations are number crunchers (and thus Quake FPS don't matter to me), the latter option eliminated both the stability problems and the texture flakiness (at the expense of some graphics speed).
By the way, nVidia mentioned the same issue exists on Win2K / Athlon boxes.
Enjoy,
Kevin
So does anyone know how performance is affected from this 4MB->4KB page thing?
AMD didn't turn interesting until the Athlon came out. The previous versions of its processors were decidedly inferior. This is *worse* than recalling for a bad, rarely used function call. I can't take a processor back 6 months after I bought it because it sucks, but I can get it replaced if it has a bona-fide bug.
If this is a bug in the processor, AMD really should fix it and offer replacement processors to those who need it. If they don't, and they expect you to patch your OS instead, then that definitely shakes my faith in that company. When you're an artist dependent on OpenGL, you can't have problems like this.
And finally...
Why are you worried about running 32-bit code on a 64-bit processor? 64-bit processors are supposed to run 64-bit code. Intel's not marketing 64-bit processors to replace desktop computers (today), they're for servers and high-end graphics with custom code. They don't NEED to run 32-bit code. I hardly think that's a point against Intel, especially considering they don't make it a big secret that 32-bit code runs slower on it.
"Derp de derp."
Nvdia drivers forces AGP to 1x due to corruptions caused by AMD Irongate chipset signal integrity [ Mentioned at the README for Nvidia 1.0-2313 Drivers ]
This newly discovered memory corruption with Athlon + AGP, is it contributing to the signal integrity of the Irongate ? Or is it a separate bug ?
Anyway this makes AMD look very bad in my view. There is a bug in the CPU and their chipset screws up my AGP to 1x. Sigh.
If you're using lilo, and just want to apply the workaround quickly, edit /etc/lilo.conf.
Before the first image= line, insert the line:
append="mem=nopentium"
The article says it happens when the kernel is compiled for Pentium processors; but does this happen if the kernel is compiled for a K7?
... I have an Athlon and it kept hard freezing. The bug doesn't happen with a Voodoo card.
By the way, I had to shelve my nVidia card a couple months ago because of this
Just as an aside, if you ever deal with ultrasparcs, you'll quickly find that the majority of the code used is 32 bit.
The reason for it is simple; most applications will run slower at 64 bit than at 32 bit. The ultrasparc chips were designed to take this into account. Hell, due to a firmware bug, solaris on my ultra 1 installs as a 32 bit kernel by defualt - and runs no slower because of it (although it can't run 64 bit apps that way). After a firmware patch, it is easy to change to running the 64 bit kernel though.
In all reality, why would most apps need 64 bit integers and whatnot? Most don't, and doing so is a waste of memory. If the processor is designed right, it can handle 32 bit code with no problems whatsoever.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
MShaft: "Not-a-bug-it's-a-feature"
Intel: "Not a bug it's erratum."
VIA: "We slowed it down to keep it cool."
Nvidia: "That was a leak! We are not doing public driver beta testing!"
ATI "Who the hell plays Quack3?"
AMD "the patch is here"
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Thank you for your attention.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Quake 3 demo was run with \timedemo 1 and \demo DEMO001 . Each test was run three times. The system load average was < 0.5 before Quake 3 was run.
Without mem=nopentium
FPS = 79.4 (79.4, 79.4, 79.4)
With mem=nopentium
FPS = 79.2 (79.1, 79.3, 79.2)
System tested:
Athlon 850, 384MB RAM, Geforce 1 DDR, VIA KT133 Chipset
Athlon/Duron/K7 optimised 2.4.17 kernel (optimising the kernel above pentium makes very little difference though)
NVidia 1.0-2313 video drivers using agpgart
Mandrake 8.0
Quake 3 settings
Texture depth = 16 bits
Colour depth = 16 bits
Geometric detail = High
Texture detail = High
Dynamic lights = On
Video mode = 1024x768
Looks like there is a difference but it's very slight (0.003%) but my benchmarks aren't very scientific. Either way, if there is an improvement in stability this tradeoff is easily worth it. Here's hoping that you don't run linux just for it's Quake 3 scores though...
Several processors had self-test instructions known as "HCF". The 6800 family and the 6502 had such instructions. They caused the processor to start fetching consecutive locations, thus continuously incrementing the address bus. Didn't damage the processor, even if you left it running that way. The "Catch Fire" was a figurative description of what was happening on the address bus, nothing more.
On the original NMOS 6502, about 13 of the undefined opcodes had this effect. This was the most common cause of computer lockups if the code went into the weeds.
On some of the later 6800 family members, the test instructions were actually documented, but Motorola's published description did not include any mnemonmic for them.
The current workaround gets around this problem by disabling 4M (2M?) pages (PSE). Hence we go back to 4K pages, and mapping large slabs of VM is a little slower and wastes memory (we need another Page table for each slab of 4M) and obviously more TLB misses/space wasted, because to touch the whole 4M region, the CPU needs to do up to 1024 page table lookups instead of 1.
:-)
As discussed this may have performance implications.
According to the AMD docs, the problem is only when flushing TLB entries with INVLPG and the page is a 4M page, _and_ the virtual address's bit 21 is set (which does not affect the 4M block of memory the address is in - eg: 0x400000 (2^22) vs 0x600000 (2^22|2^21) are both in the second 4M block).
Hence, when invlpg'ing a VA we just need to INVLPG(address&~(1 (leftshift) 21)). This only requires a single ANDL instruction. But we need to distinguish a 4M page first though, so I don't know?
Heck maybe we should just do it the FreeBSD way and recursively map the Pagedir
Any ideas? Will this work?
--JQuirke
None of the Athlons or Durons I've built have had any problems with Tux Racer (Mostly on Man8.1 default install).
My nephew spends hours Sliding that little penguin arround with that bloody elevator music going, & not once has there been a freeze or lockup, much to my dissapointment.
Maybe it sheds some light on this issue.
I've lost count of the number of times I wanted 64-bit integers, in pretty general purpose apps.
Not because I do big databases or suchlike, but they let you do loads of optimisations that wouldn't otherwise be possible. For example, you can pass around 8-byte structures in a single register, which is damn useful given the lack of available registers in the x86 architecture.
Example: I've recently been coding a large hexagonal grid component. Each point in the grid is indexed by 2 32-bit (x,y) integers. With a 64-bit register, you could put a full co-ordinate into a single register.
Why is this useful? Well, one of my requirements was to be able to manage large sets of co-ordinates (think reachable spaces for an AI). You want to be able to combine sets of co-ordinates, which basically requires merging two lists. In order to merge lists efficiently, you need to sort them. And with the 64-bit representation, you can do this with just one subtraction and one branch rather than a combination of two subtracts
and two branches. This is a definite speedup if you are hand-coding, and possibly an even bigger one if your compiler doesn't inline all the 32-bit code properly.
Other example: 32-bits are large enough for most integer applications (you couldn't enumerate all the people on the plant though....) but they tend to fall down when you multiply, e.g. 100,000 * 100,000 has already blown the 32-bit limit, and neither of those are particularly big numbers. Whenever you start doing a reasonable amount of multiplication, 64-bit becomes useful.
Also, 64-bits is big enough to encode the positions of pieces on a chess board. You can use bitwise logic to analyse and store positions. GNU chess certainly does it this way. I expect a *cosiderable* speedup in the top chess-playing algorithms when 64-bit becomes widespread.
I'm really keen to se 256-bit arrive to be honest, 2^(2^3) has more elegance than 2^(2*3) and it would allow you to store a set of bytes in one register. Would allow some very cool text-processing tricks.
Course, it might never happen - I predict a move towards massively parallel 64-bit computers rather than stonking 256-bit ones as the next major evolution in processor power.
First of all, this bug is not that significant performance wise. Very little software is going to use 4 MB pages. I don't think you even have an option of allocating memory with 4 MB pages in user space. This appears to be an issue with being able to optimise drivers, however, if AMD's processors can't do this, and Intel's can, why don't we see Intel's processors greatly outperforming AMD's in Win2k? This is a minor bug, and it's easily worked around without patching the kernel in both Win2k and Linux.
The processors are basicly all their Athlon and Duron processors. For AMD or any chip maker to replace chips with bugs in them is VERY expensive. They already have a low profit margin. Replacing all "defective" Athlon and Duron processors would simply bankrupt AMD. Realisticly, all complex software or hardware has bugs. Bugs in hardware are much more difficult and expensive to fix. The truely significant hardware bugs are usually found early in testing. Other bugs are fixed in software, usually in the system BIOS, but sometimes in the OS code. This isn't something new. It's pretty much always been this way. Why has it been this way? Because no one wants to pay the outlandish prices that would result from trying to make hardware perfect. It costs a tremendous amount of money to reroll a processor. It's not as simple as making a quick code change and recompiling software. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE BUGS IN PROCESSORS! A truely significant bug like the Pentium floating point bug needs to be fixed in the hardware, and that one was even significant enough to deserve a recall of the processor. This bug is simple to work around, and isn't truely a significant problem.
The question you asked in the subject is "Should AMD do the right thing?" The answer is yes, they should correct their Technology Bulletin to actually say what the processor bug is, rather than just say here's a workaround to a bug that effects Win2k.
I'm really surprsed that someone at NVidia didn't pass this on to Linux kernel developers much sooner, since people at that company seem to have been aware of this for some time.
What irks me is this: I got hit with this bug. I posted bug reports to Debian, with NVidia, on different forum, report lock-ups in certain open-GL situations. I got generally hand-waving "read the fucking manual" responses.
As the article notes, this isn't just a problem with AMD. It suggests that there's an ongoing problem with troubleshooting and resolving the sorts of issues that desktop users are going to have in Linux. (And "paying for support" would not have resolved much, would it have? The problem is the lack of coordination, not the lack of money.)