Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): This occured while installing a fresh machine from RHEL 4 U2 CD set. ( x86_64 ) This fresh new machine is a HP Prolient DL145 Generation 2 Server 1 U rack mount with 4GB of ram and two AMD CPUs This occurs when attempting to install from CD ( the CDs are fine; they installed a different machine successfully ) Graphical or text mode it fails in the same place. Is x86_64 RHEL 4 U2 the same for AMD and Intel ? How reproducible: Consistently and has been observed on two of these machines. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Insert RHEL 4 U2 CD disc 1 and boot 2. Choose either graphical or text install. 3. Installation fails quickly with the message Kernel panic - not syncing: PCI-DMA:high address but no IOMMU Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Here is further information concerning the kernel panic message .. ACPI: ( Supports S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 ) ACPI Wakeup devices: PC10 COM1 KBC0 MSE0 USB0 USB2 P2P0 XVR0 XVR1 XVR2 XCR0 XCR1 md: Autodetecting RAID array. md: autorun ... md: ... autorun DONE. RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0 VFS: Mounted root (ext2 filesystem) Greetings. anaconda installer init version 10.1.1.25 starting mounting /proc filesystem ... DONE mounting /dev/pts (unix98 pty) filesystem ... DONE mounting /sys filesystem ... DONE trying to remount root filesystem read write ... done mounting /tmp as ramfs ... DONE running install ... running /sbin/loader Kernel panic - not syncing: PCI-DMA:high address but no IOMMU
OK there must be an existing bug open for this one. Not sure which one though from my quick glance around. WORKAROUND ---------- 1. Go into the bios -> Advanced -> MCFG Table 2. Set the option to DISABLED Note the description for this option is as follows: "This feature needs to be disabled for some linux version to work with devices on PCI-X Slots correctly. Example. RHAS 4.0 Update 1 (32 bits or 64 bits)" So this is a known problem for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.0 U1 and is still a problem in U2.
> there must be an existing bug open for this one. Can you check BZ#169115 to see if it is similiar issue that you are running into?
Sorry I missed your comment / update. I took a look at the other bug and it sure looks like the same problem. I am going to go ahead and mark my bug as a duplicate of that one. Thanks for pointing it out !!! *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 169115 ***