ac100 team mailing list archive

[Julian Andres Klode <jak@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 03:31:56PM +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> Which kernel are you using?

A somewhat older build of Marc's kernel (one month), the one
I have in my Debian repository + the change to use 1000 instead
of 1200.

> I just did the change to board-paz00-power.c reducing SM1 voltage
> from 1200mV to 1000mV, and now I have been running the pbzip2 test
> on a loop at low priority and recompiling glibc at normal priority,
> and I've not been able to shake either of my AC100s loose. Since I
> couldn't get anywhere near this sort of load before without
> something erroring out, I'd say that this made quite a substantial
> difference to stability.

You probably did not run it at 1200 for 2 hours and then flashed
a new kernel, rebooted, and tried another build directly. This
might have caused certain parts to heat up already to an extent
where it needs a bit of rest before running again. I expect it
to work after a cold boot, though.

While we're at it (questions for you, and my answers to them)
  (a) what cpufreq governor are you using? [performance]
  (b) do you have battery plugged in? [no]
  (c) where is gcc and source located? [btrfs on USB HDD]

The problem here could also be related to the USB hard disk which
is powered by the AC100, or the btrfs filesystem going crazy from
time to time.

> Marc, could you please change this to 1000mV in git? Running at
> 1200mV really seems to upset stability.

Marc, as it helps Gordan, I support this. I'll do testing on a cold
boot later today or tomorrow (that is, either soon or in about 19
hours).


-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

Attachment: pgpBdJMEjHidT.pgp
Description: PGP signature