Bug 22259 - Xorg freezes with Radeon X1200
Summary: Xorg freezes with Radeon X1200
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: xorg
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Driver/radeonhd (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: x86 (IA32) Linux (All)
: medium normal
Assignee: Luc Verhaegen
QA Contact: Xorg Project Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-06-12 12:43 UTC by Demiurg
Modified: 2011-11-07 15:33 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:


Attachments
Xorg.0.log (141.56 KB, patch)
2009-06-12 12:44 UTC, Demiurg
no flags Details | Splinter Review
shadowfb - xorg.conf (1.55 KB, application/octet-stream)
2009-06-22 11:41 UTC, Demiurg
no flags Details
shadowfb - Xorg.0.log (167.67 KB, application/octet-stream)
2009-06-22 11:42 UTC, Demiurg
no flags Details

Description Demiurg 2009-06-12 12:43:28 UTC
OS - out of the box and up to date FC10.
HW - Asus  M2A-VM motherboard with integrated Radeon X1200

Xorg freezes from time to time for no apparent reason. When it happens the mouse moves a bit, the keyboard does not respond and the image on the screen is frozen. However, the box is accessible via network.

In the past it used to happen with "radeon" driver only, when I switch to radeonhd the problem disappeared. However, after some upgrade it reappeared and now happens with both radeon and radeonhd.

fglrx driver were never installed on this box.
Comment 1 Demiurg 2009-06-12 12:44:08 UTC
Created attachment 26736 [details] [review]
Xorg.0.log
Comment 2 Alex Deucher 2009-06-12 12:49:24 UTC
Can you try with xf86-video-ati git master or 6.12-branch?
Comment 3 Demiurg 2009-06-12 12:54:21 UTC
Yeah... will probably take a day or to, to compile and reproduce the problem
Comment 4 Demiurg 2009-06-12 13:21:11 UTC
git version does not compile 

./configure: line 20833: syntax error near unexpected token `XINERAMA,'
./configure: line 20833: `XORG_DRIVER_CHECK_EXT(XINERAMA, xineramaproto)'

libXinerama-devel.i386 is installed.

Suggestions ?
Comment 5 Alex Deucher 2009-06-12 13:30:32 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> git version does not compile 
> 
> ./configure: line 20833: syntax error near unexpected token `XINERAMA,'
> ./configure: line 20833: `XORG_DRIVER_CHECK_EXT(XINERAMA, xineramaproto)'
> 
> libXinerama-devel.i386 is installed.
> 
> Suggestions ?
> 

You need xorg macros and devel packages.  I'm not sure what the packages are needed on redhat off hand, probably xorg-x11-util-macros, xorg-x11-server-devel, and libdrm-devel.
Comment 6 Demiurg 2009-06-12 13:40:33 UTC
xf86-video-ati-6.10.0.tar.bz2 compiles just fine, which means that all packages are installed. git version fails...
Comment 7 Alex Deucher 2009-06-12 13:51:43 UTC
installing the xorg-x11-server-devel should fix that error.
Comment 8 Demiurg 2009-06-12 13:56:02 UTC
xorg-x11-server-devel is installed. 
Comment 9 Alec Habig 2009-06-12 14:00:47 UTC
Builds OK for me on F11 (today) and F10 (two days ago).

Looking at the fedora .spec file for the xorg-x11-drv-radeonhd package, 

# grep BuildRequires xorg-x11-drv-radeonhd.spec
BuildRequires: pkgconfig
BuildRequires: pciutils-devel
BuildRequires: zlib-devel
BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-sdk  >= 1.1
BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-sdk >= 1.4.99.1
BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-sdk < 1.4.99.1
BuildRequires: libdrm-devel
BuildRequires: xorg-x11-proto-devel

so I certainly have that set of packages installed, if that helps.
Comment 10 Demiurg 2009-06-12 14:08:08 UTC
I don't know, looks like everything is installed.

Do you have a clue why 6.10 compiles just fine and git version does not ? Is it so different ?
Comment 11 Demiurg 2009-06-12 14:10:08 UTC
I managed to compile it,no idea what was the problem. 
will try the driver now and report tomorrow.
Comment 12 Demiurg 2009-06-14 10:06:43 UTC
It is hard to tell whether the git version has this problem, but it is definitely worse than the original one in one respect - it often does not wake from suspend, while the original one did quite well.
Comment 13 Demiurg 2009-06-15 10:03:55 UTC
OK, it finally happened with the git version as well.
Comment 14 Demiurg 2009-06-15 11:04:44 UTC
Should I switch to proprietary drivers or is there a chance for a fix ?
Comment 15 Matthias Hopf 2009-06-16 03:12:54 UTC
You can probably circumvent the issue with radeonhd by using

  Option "AccelMethod" "shadowfb"

It looks like the issue you're seeing happens with acceleration active only. shadowfb is a bit slower (especially for video), but reasonably fast to actually use it.
Comment 16 Demiurg 2009-06-16 03:21:04 UTC
Well, video is important, but apparently I have no choice - with fglrx drivers which I tried yesterday the system reboots when X starts...

Hope there will be a solution soon enough, it's kinda ironic to switch from Windows to Linux for stability and have the machine freeze once a day...
Comment 17 Demiurg 2009-06-19 13:16:51 UTC
AccelMethod shadowfb is VERY slow, too slow even for web browsing...
Comment 18 Matthias Hopf 2009-06-22 06:41:30 UTC
Then something is going wrong. Please attach the xorg.conf with ShadowFB, and a new Xorg.0.log.
Comment 19 Demiurg 2009-06-22 11:41:43 UTC
Created attachment 27017 [details]
shadowfb - xorg.conf

xorg.conf with shadowfb. scrolling is painful, it takes a few seconds for page down in Firefox !
Comment 20 Demiurg 2009-06-22 11:42:24 UTC
Created attachment 27018 [details]
shadowfb - Xorg.0.log
Comment 21 Matthias Hopf 2009-06-23 05:49:56 UTC
Nothing in the logs that reminds me of anything. But are you using a compositing manager (desktop effects, compiz)? That won't work without 3D, of course, and shadowfb disables 3D.
Comment 22 Demiurg 2009-06-23 05:57:20 UTC
No, I'm not using compiz, just plain old GNOME.

Are you saying that ShadowFB should be visibly faster (for things such as scrolling in firefox) than no acceleration at all ? It is not in my case.
Comment 23 Matthias Hopf 2009-06-23 06:20:40 UTC
On scrolling shadowFB should be almost as fast as EXA. On the other hand NoAccel is close to unusable. So yes, there is a dramatic difference between shadowFB and NoAccel.
Comment 24 Demiurg 2009-06-23 06:23:43 UTC
Than, I would say it looks like an additional bug. Should I create another bug report ?

Is there anything I can do to help you debug this issue ? In case anybody is interested in solving it...
Comment 25 Matthias Hopf 2009-06-23 06:34:00 UTC
Looks like you're right. Unfortunately, this will be difficult to debug unless one can reproduce the issue. And I'm utterly swamped for the time being.
Comment 26 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia 2011-10-16 15:57:50 UTC
Does this issue occur with the preferred ati driver (xf86-vide-ati)?  If so, please move this to the Driver/Radeon component.  

Development of radeonhd has pretty much halted and development focus is on the ati driver.  Please see http://www.x.org/wiki/radeonhd

If the issue does not exist in the ati driver (or if there is no response to this message), this bug will be closed as WONTFIX unless someone contributes a patch.
Comment 27 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia 2011-11-07 15:33:16 UTC
Closing due to lack of response.  Please reopen and move to the Driver/Radeon 
component if this issue persists with xf86-video-ati


Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.