Linode Forum
Linode Community Forums 		 FAQFAQ    SearchSearch    MembersMembers      Register Register 
 LoginLogin [ Anonymous ] 
Post new topic  Reply to topic

Board index » Linux Community Forums » General Discussion
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
EviL_SmUrF
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:57 am 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:43 pm
Posts: 49
I decided to redo my entire linode, so I deleted all my disk images, all of my configurations, and started over with a fedora core 2 image.

It boots just fine and dandy into 2.4 kernel.

But try to put the 2.6.8.1 kernel on there? wooo watch out.

The box wont even come up. I click on boot, the overview says its running, but if I try to use lish and connect to it, lish tells me my linode isnt running.

You may want to double check your kernel caker.
Top
   
Reply with quote  
caker
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:04 am 
Offline
Linode Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:24 pm
Posts: 3090
Website: http://www.linode.com/
Location: Galloway, NJ
Depending on which distro you deployed, you might first need to "mv /lib/tls /lib/tls-disabled". This applies to Fedora/Redhat/Centos...

-Chris
Top
   
Reply with quote  
EviL_SmUrF
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:06 am 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:43 pm
Posts: 49
So in order to run the newest kernel, I'll have to do that on the 2.4 kernel, and then have it reboot into the 2.6.8.1 kernel?
Top
   
Reply with quote  
pclissold
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:44 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:51 pm
Posts: 965
Location: Netherlands
EviL_SmUrF wrote:
So in order to run the newest kernel, I'll have to do that on the 2.4 kernel, and then have it reboot into the 2.6.8.1 kernel?

Yes. If you do a logview in lish after booting 2.6.8.1, it most likely ends with a kernel panic. More and more stuff in RedHat and related distros relies on Thread local Storage, which doesn't work (yet) under UML.

_________________
/ Peter
Top
   
Reply with quote  
thoth39
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:39 pm 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:02 pm
Posts: 20
If anyone is interested, this is the last lines available with logview, from booting a Fedora Core 2 image with kernel 2.6.8.1:

Quote:
ip_conntrack version 2.1 (463 buckets, 3704 max) - 296 bytes per conntrack
ip_tables: (C) 2000-2002 Netfilter core team
ipt_recent v0.3.1: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>. http://snowman.net/projects/ipt_recent/
arp_tables: (C) 2002 David S. Miller
Initializing IPsec netlink socket
NET: Registered protocol family 1
NET: Registered protocol family 10
IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling driver
ip6_tables: (C) 2000-2002 Netfilter core team
NET: Registered protocol family 17
NET: Registered protocol family 15
Bridge firewalling registered
Ebtables v2.0 registered
802.1Q VLAN Support v1.8 Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
All bugs added by David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com>
Initializing software serial port version 1
Using anticipatory io scheduler
/dev/ubd/disc0: unknown partition table
/dev/ubd/disc1: unknown partition table
Initializing stdio console driver
md: Autodetecting RAID arrays.
md: autorun ...
md: ... autorun DONE.
kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds
EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.
VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) readonly.
INIT: version 2.85 booting
Kernel panic: handle_trap - failed to wait at end of syscall, errno = 4, status = 4479

<6>SysRq : Show Regs

EIP: 0073:[<400007a2>] CPU: 0 Not tainted ESP: 007b:bffff934 EFLAGS: 00000206
Not tainted
EAX: 0000008c EBX: 01200011 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
ESI: 00000000 EDI: 40146528 EBP: bffff9a8 DS: 007b ES: 007b
Call Trace: [<801e7e0c>] [<8001ec46>] [<80040426>] [<80033d62>] [<80033dcb>]
[<8002264a>] [<80022918>] [<800230f0>] [<802e60d8>] [<802e6331>]


This does not happen with kernel 2.6.7, which boots normally.
This doesn't seem to be NPTL-related.
Top
   
Reply with quote  
pclissold
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:57 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:51 pm
Posts: 965
Location: Netherlands
thoth39 wrote:
This does not happen with kernel 2.6.7, which boots normally.
This doesn't seem to be NPTL-related.


Just me, jumping to conclusions again :roll:. You're correct, this is a UML problem, not NPTL/TLS at all.

_________________
/ Peter
Top
   
Reply with quote  
caker
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:17 pm 
Offline
Linode Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:24 pm
Posts: 3090
Website: http://www.linode.com/
Location: Galloway, NJ
thoth39 wrote:
This does not happen with kernel 2.6.7, which boots normally. This doesn't seem to be NPTL-related.


I'm able to boot FC2 under 2.6.8.1 just fine:

Code:
[root@li7-3 root]# uname -a
Linux li7-3 2.6.8.1-linode4-1um #1 Sat Sep 18 22:53:39 EDT 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
[root@li7-3 root]# cat /etc/redhat-release 
Fedora Core release 2 (Tettnang)


thoth39 wrote:
Kernel panic: handle_trap - failed to wait at end of syscall, errno = 4, status = 4479

I've seen that bug before. The UML guys are working they way through them. It has to do with re-trying the waitpid call without just exiting if it fails the first time around. I added the incremental "eintr" patch, so this kernel is far better off than any of the other 2.6 (or even 2.4 based kernels) in this regard. You were just lucky, I guess.

Mind giving it another try?

-Chris
Top
   
Reply with quote  
EviL_SmUrF
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:56 pm 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:43 pm
Posts: 49
im gonna go ahead and leave my linode runnin on the latest 2.4 until all of these bugs are sorted through and caker says he recommends for us to use the new kernel.
Top
   
Reply with quote  
sweh
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:25 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:54 pm
Posts: 833
EviL_SmUrF wrote:
im gonna go ahead and leave my linode runnin on the latest 2.4 until all of these bugs are sorted through and caker says he recommends for us to use the new kernel.

Good idea. The 2.4 series is nice and stable:-)
Code:
% uname -r ; uptime
2.4.26-linode29-1um
 10:24:42  up 109 days, 19:00,  1 user,  load average: 0.05, 0.05, 0.01

_________________
Rgds
Stephen
(Linux user since kernel version 0.11)
Top
   
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic

Board index » Linux Community Forums » General Discussion


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
RSS

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group