Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #1624

closed

BTX Halted on X86_64 master

Added by elekktretterr almost 12 years ago. Updated almost 10 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
-
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:

Description

Hi all,

I just wanted to try the 64bit DragonFly version on my laptop. The i386
version boots fine, but the x86_64 version stops with BTX Halted right
after the DragonFly loader menu. This is occuring on the latest snapshot.

Unfortunately I have no idea how to debug this.

Petr

Actions #1

Updated by jgordeev almost 12 years ago

Please, give more information.
Have you ever booted x86_64 DragonFly on your laptop successfully? Is
your laptop 64-bit capable? Does FreeBSD/amd64 boot on it?
Does the BTX Halted message appear just when the menu is being shown or
just when the countdown reaches zero/you press enter and the kernel is
supposed to be loading?

Actions #2

Updated by elekktretterr almost 12 years ago

Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and I had
assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.

Sorry.....

Actions #3

Updated by jgordeev almost 12 years ago

There's a change in FreeBSD's loader that detects processors that are
not 64-bit capable and prints an error message, instead of "BTX Halted".

Actions #4

Updated by wbh almost 12 years ago

wrote:

Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and I had
assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.

Sorry.....

Odd, that. Just which specific CPU do you have? Mobility-something, perchance?

Not only the Core-2, but the earlier Core-D had Intel's '64-bit extensions'
(mostly) cross-licensed from AMD.

My Core-D happily ran FreeBSD ADM64 (6.2 beta onward).

Is DFLY that different?

Bill

Actions #5

Updated by TGEN almost 12 years ago

Bill Hacker wrote:

wrote:

Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and I had
assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.

Sorry.....

Odd, that. Just which specific CPU do you have? Mobility-something,
perchance?

Not only the Core-2, but the earlier Core-D had Intel's '64-bit
extensions' (mostly) cross-licensed from AMD.

My Core-D happily ran FreeBSD ADM64 (6.2 beta onward).

Is DFLY that different?

Bill

None of the Core Duo chips support EM64T. Are you perhaps confusing the
Pentium D with the Core Duo? Also, all Core Duo chips were mobile ones,
save for the Xeon ULV ("Sossaman"), which was for dual-socket servers
(short-lived though, as a couple of months later Woodcrest and friends
(Core 2-based) were released).
--
Thomas E. Spanjaard

Actions #6

Updated by wbh almost 12 years ago

Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:

Bill Hacker wrote:

wrote:

Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and I had
assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.

Sorry.....

Odd, that. Just which specific CPU do you have? Mobility-something,
perchance?

Not only the Core-2, but the earlier Core-D had Intel's '64-bit
extensions' (mostly) cross-licensed from AMD.

My Core-D happily ran FreeBSD ADM64 (6.2 beta onward).

Is DFLY that different?

Bill

None of the Core Duo chips support EM64T. Are you perhaps confusing the
Pentium D with the Core Duo? Also, all Core Duo chips were mobile ones,
save for the Xeon ULV ("Sossaman"), which was for dual-socket servers
(short-lived though, as a couple of months later Woodcrest and friends
(Core 2-based) were released).

ACK 'marketing Nomenclature' - (the 'Core-D' / Pentium D eg - pre 'Core 2'
having been presented as meaning 'Core Duo')

.. which is why I asked about the number. Though of course a dmesg would show
that ... so long as the booting stage got that far:

(aged Tyan ====
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz (3000.14-MHz K8-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf62 Stepping = 2

Features=0xbfebfbff<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE>
Features2=0xe43d<SSE3,RSVD2,MON,DS_CPL,VMX,CNXT-ID,CX16,xTPR,PDCM>
AMD Features=0x20100800<SYSCALL,NX,LM>
AMD Features2=0x1<LAHF>
Cores per package: 2 ====

Perhaps we should boot with an i32 image, detect what's there, throw a flag -
much as an OpenBSD insall selects an MP kernel (or not), and logs that action.
Doesn't need a lot of extra CD/DVD space ... or code.

I'll worry about all that when VIA Nano dualcore become common or ARM gets faster.

Meanwhile, after half a century of listening to fan noise, I'm chasing lower
power instead of raw speed and have come to rather enjoy what Simon & Garfunkel
called 'the sounds of silence'.

;-)

Bill

Actions #7

Updated by dillon almost 12 years ago

Heh. As Jordan indicated, this is where improving the failure message
reduces the confusion.

-Matt
Matthew Dillon
&lt;&gt;
Actions #8

Updated by alexh almost 12 years ago

For reference: http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?
view=revision&revision=183667 .
That's the commit that introduces the failure message about trying to run on
x86.

Cheers,
Alex Hornung

Actions #9

Updated by TGEN almost 12 years ago

Bill Hacker wrote:

Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:

Bill Hacker wrote:

wrote:

Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and
I had
assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.

Sorry.....

Odd, that. Just which specific CPU do you have? Mobility-something,
perchance?

Not only the Core-2, but the earlier Core-D had Intel's '64-bit
extensions' (mostly) cross-licensed from AMD.

My Core-D happily ran FreeBSD ADM64 (6.2 beta onward).

Is DFLY that different?

Bill

None of the Core Duo chips support EM64T. Are you perhaps confusing the
Pentium D with the Core Duo? Also, all Core Duo chips were mobile ones,
save for the Xeon ULV ("Sossaman"), which was for dual-socket servers
(short-lived though, as a couple of months later Woodcrest and friends
(Core 2-based) were released).

ACK 'marketing Nomenclature' - (the 'Core-D' / Pentium D eg - pre 'Core
2' having been presented as meaning 'Core Duo')

I've never seen the Pentium D marketed as "Core-D" around here though,
that'd have been awful :).

I'll worry about all that when VIA Nano dualcore become common or ARM
gets faster.

Haven't seen those Nano chips in the wild yet, unfortunately.

Meanwhile, after half a century of listening to fan noise, I'm chasing
lower power instead of raw speed and have come to rather enjoy what
Simon & Garfunkel called 'the sounds of silence'.

What about a blindingly fast system, but running in another
(sound-proofed) room? :P

Btw, your e-mail address bounces.
--
Thomas E. Spanjaard

Actions #10

Updated by wbh almost 12 years ago

Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:

Bill Hacker wrote:

ACK 'marketing Nomenclature' - (the 'Core-D' / Pentium D eg - pre 'Core
2' having been presented as meaning 'Core Duo')

I've never seen the Pentium D marketed as "Core-D" around here though,
that'd have been awful :).

T'was ever thus in Asia anyway..

Core-D (faster clock, 'fatter' lithography, hungry, slower FSB/RAM

is NE to

Core-2 (the reverse on all of the above)

I'll worry about all that when VIA Nano dualcore become common or ARM
gets faster.

Haven't seen those Nano chips in the wild yet, unfortunately.

Dual-core, no. AFAIK, still a demo, if not 'lab' item.

Plenty of the solo's around in Netbooks and STB's though.

Wot the Hey - even the lowly C7 is a surprisingly good performer as a desktop.

All down to the hardware encryption engine and OpenSSL/SSH support for it. So
very much of what one does on a desktop uses encryption (ssh, scp, sftp, https,
esmtps(a), imaps, WiFi, rsync, VNC, remote X, remote desktop, distributed fs'en
.... etc) that the hardware crypto engine very handily offsets the
generally-slower-than-CHEAP Intel CPU.

OTOH - as a compiler box? ... NFW!

Meanwhile, after half a century of listening to fan noise, I'm chasing
lower power instead of raw speed and have come to rather enjoy what
Simon & Garfunkel called 'the sounds of silence'.

What about a blindingly fast system, but running in another
(sound-proofed) room? :P

BT,DT,GTTS. 'Challenging' with the pair of laptops I now Globetrot with, and -
limited by the uplinks - the speed is no longer of much consequence, as anything
at 1 GHz (G4) to 1.5 GHz (x86) is seldom loaded up.

Btw, your e-mail address bounces.

Looking into that. Taking the headers from your post here, and ass-u-me-ing you
came off the same 'net from which you post to crater, I don't find any of the
three 'possible suspects' in my Exim logs as even attempting to attach recently.

From which IP did you originate the last leg toward conducive.net?

BTW - Sorry for the delay in responding - was enroute HKG USA on the 15th, then
distracted on arrival by need to deal with a water main leak and a snowstorm.

Actions #11

Updated by alexh almost 10 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)
  • Status changed from New to Closed
  • Assignee deleted (0)

committed freebsd's work in the area in 71920ddbfafa6ebd2812dc32ea61f7d69c05175b

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF