Core halt?
Core halt?
I'm using the Elitebook again, and if you're unfamiliar, the main point is that the CPU occasionally crashes but remains stable without Turbo Boost. For more details, you can check the post mentioned, though it might not be necessary to read thoroughly. I was testing with GNU/Linux and Turbo enabled at normal power settings. Suddenly, components stopped responding. I attempted a restart, but it also froze. A watchdog alert appeared, indicating a soft lock due to CPU#4 being stuck. This meant the fourth core or thread was halted. It's fascinating because I've never seen such a scenario before. I realized just how powerful and flexible GNU/Linux can be. A single physical core stopped functioning, yet the system stayed operational—probably because another core was unaffected. This made me think about how the OS handles tasks on specific cores. If everything seems fine, it might point to a defective core. Fixing it could involve more than just a reboot; perhaps adjusting voltage settings or checking firmware would help. I'm hoping this gives me useful clues for diagnosing the issue.
GoatedPenguin's GNU/Linux runs exceptionally smoothly without any issues. Windows, however, struggles to even open the login screen. Should I be able to configure Windows to avoid using a particular core? The msconfig method seems available, but it doesn<|pad|> to block that setting. I suspect Turbo Boost isn't functioning properly in this case.
You might want to check your bios settings and turn off core 3. It seems like core 4 is causing issues with your OS. Have you made any updates to your BIOS?
You're suggesting your firmware supports those features, but it seems HP isn't delivering. The system behaves differently depending on core indexing—what appears as core 4 might actually be the third core. I experimented with isolcpus and considered disabling HT to simplify troubleshooting. The crash happens when CPU#4 is involved, which hints at deeper issues beyond basic settings.
What total physical cores do you possess? You can turn off the core at runtime by adding it to the blacklist in Linux using `powercfg` and blacklisting it in BIOS. On Linux, run the appropriate commands to disable a specific core, then confirm with `lscpu`. If you need to remove it, simply set the command to echo 1 instead of 0.
I mentioned four points already. I wasn't sure you could isolate the core at runtime. It's tough for me to crash on GNU/Linux, but it's impossible on Windows with turbo enabled. How do you use Powercfg?
This indicates the issue lies in the physical core 3. For Linux, isolating the core can be addressed by adding isolcpu or disabling the CPU during execution. On Windows, it's more complex... I consulted chatgpt because I was too lazy to research Windows settings: powercfg /query replace [n] with the core number) and then remove the "[]" powercfg /setacvalueindex SUB_PROCESSOR PERFBOOSTMODE [n] 0 powercfg /setactive scheme_current
@goatedpenguin Was testing a bit. I am very overwhelmed. On Ubuntu right now, because it is much heavier than Arch (without DE) so higher chances of crashing (I didn't install Ubuntu just for this, wanted to switch to a Windows replacement already). First I tried with HT off, so only 4 cores and 4 threads, and I used "isolcpus=2" so my 3rd core would be sleeping. For all the time I used it didn't crash. I am on the same setting right now, and it still isn't crashing. Just to clarify that Ubuntu does crash, I already ran it with stock settings and turbo on, and it did crash. I had HT disabled so I thought to enable, but for it to not crash also, I used isolcpus=4,5 and also isolcpus=4-5. This should sleep both the threads for the 3rd core. I think both the times it crashed, or at least for one it definitely did. Very confusing. I am always monitoring stuff, and the 3rd core should be in sleep but system still crashed. Then I thought that if core 3 really is the problem somehow, then running the system only on core 3 should crash it, right? Well with HT off (turbo on), I did isolcpus=0,1,3, and I clarified that the system was indeed running on only core 3. It didn't crash. This explains that there are either multiple problems, or the problem is not regarding the core. I then tested one more thing that is running Windows with HT off and turbo on. For my surprise it was much stable. I remember that I had tested with this setting and it still crashed, and so did this time as well but it took some time. Tested it 2 times. Both the times the BSOD error was "machine check exception", which was different than the "whea uncorrectable error" I was getting. I tried to use WinDBG to debug the crash and I couldn't understand much. A search on the BSOD code still represents a hardware problem. And to clarify that the BSOD error code hadn't change permanently for me, I enabled HT (turbo on) and it crashed much quicker and the BSOD code was back to the whea thing. So it could be that disabling HT gives more stability, and that is why I am not crashing on Ubuntu, and isolating the 3rd core might not do anything. But for that I will test with all 4 cores running with HT disabled and see if I crash, and to my memory, I think I did crash before bit I don't really remember. Just to let you know if you are lost, the system works fine on all cores and threads with turbo boost disabled. But I am looking to get the performance of turbo of course. There is still the thought in my brain that it could be power related. That it would explain why it will run fine with running on 1 core. One thing to note that I can disable multi-processor to only run the system on 1 core (with HT enabled or disabled) and the system will still never crash. I thought that the core 0 or whatever the system would run on is not defective, but now, I can run the system on 3rd core and still not crash. So at the end I can really use this setting where HT and 3rd core are off, or use limit the power limits as that is proven to be more stable but yes in Windows it will still crash.