On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:22:11AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > >But why does _this_ box lock up if this erratum hasn't been observed in the > >wild elsewhere -- at least that's what the spec update says, IIRC? > > Dominik, I just remembered that you brought this up earlier and I didn't > answer your question. My apologies -- I didn't mean to ignore your > question. > > Intel's comment IMO, means they haven't seen it happen in the wild and > not that it won't happen ;) > > We have "in the wild" reports from customers running RHEL as well as our > own internal testing on these systems. I can reproduce this in ~3 hours > by running a heavy load on one of our systems. > > I can also reproduce this running the latest Fedora with a current kernel. > > FWIW, I've also dealt with another errata where the same comment was > made -- but in that case the bug *DID* happen in the field... so I'm > taking the "in the wild" portion with a grain of salt. > > P. On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:24:45AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > -- at least that's what the spec update says, IIRC? > > The spec update was put out before it had been observed in the wild. > Now its been observed in the wild (well, both Red Hat and Intel labs). ACK, thanks for the explanation. Dominik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
