Re: kexec boot regression

[Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [PATCH] x86/pci: intel ioh bus num reg accessing fix
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it is above 0x100, so if mmconf is not enable, need to skip it
>>>>>>>>> This works, it kexecs kernels fine. But since 2.6.32 doesn't have the
>>>>>>>>> mmconf problem to begin with, are we now just working around the issue?
>>>>>>>>> SRAT still reports issues, numa doesn't work.
>>>>>>>> that patch will be bullet proof... we need it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> also still need to figure out why memmap range is not passed properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> do you mean 2.6.32 kexec 2.6.32 it have worked mmconf and numa in
>>>>>>>> second kernel?
>>>>>>> Yes, 2.6.32 booted and 2.6.32 kexec'ed works just fine, no SRAT
>>>>>>> complaints and NUMA works fine.
>>>>>> do you need 
>>>>>> memmap=62G@4G
>>>>>> in this case?
>>>>> Yes, I've needed that always.
>>>> good,
>>>>
>>>> can you enable debug option in kexec to see why kexec can not pass
>>>> whole 38? range to second kernel?
>>> Not getting any output so far, -d doesn't do much. Poking around in the
>>> source...
>> OK, cold boot and kexec 2.0.1 gets all 39 ranges passed properly to
>> kexec'ed kernels. Since the older kexec stopped at range 30 (31 ranges
>> total), that smells like just a kexec bug. Retesting -git...
> 
> Current -git works fine when all the ranges are passed correctly. So, I
> think, the only existing regression is the SRAT issue.

did you change node_shift?

YH