From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Scheiner Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:08:02 +0000 Subject: Re: Regression in 543cea9a - was: Re: Kernel problem on rx2800 i2 Message-Id: <000348b4-0786-9ebc-e79e-28815fa9890c@web.de> List-Id: References: <1d62aadd-67b6-da13-53cc-4b5213de8937@physik.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <1d62aadd-67b6-da13-53cc-4b5213de8937@physik.fu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On 6/25/19 14:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 01:21:38PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >>> Ok, that looks much better now with the second patch: >>> ...even after a second reboot for verification. Great!( >>> (...) >>> I assume this won't affect UMA Itaniums or should I check on one of my >>> other Integrities if this change breaks the kernel on them? >> >> Nice! I just assume we won't be able to use the patch "as is" as it would >> potentially break other architectures if I'm not mistaken. > > It doesn't actually _break_ anything, but it regresses in not doing > node local allocations. Give me some time to dig through the ia64 > code to figure out if I can make sense of this. Thanks for your help and support. I'm happy to test what you come up with. Cheers, Frank