From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.191]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97CFDDE9A for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:02:54 +1100 (EST) Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c27so2492423rvf.9 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:02:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <84144f020801231302g2cafdda9kf7f916121dc56aa5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:02:51 +0200 From: "Pekka Enberg" Sender: penberg@gmail.com To: "Nishanth Aravamudan" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix boot problem in situations where the boot CPU is running on a memoryless node In-Reply-To: <20080123195220.GB3848@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20080123075821.GA17713@aepfle.de> <20080123121459.GA18631@aepfle.de> <20080123125236.GA18876@aepfle.de> <20080123135513.GA14175@csn.ul.ie> <20080123155655.GB20156@csn.ul.ie> <20080123195220.GB3848@us.ibm.com> Cc: lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, Olaf Hering , Linux MM , Mel Gorman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Christoph Lameter List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, On Jan 23, 2008 9:52 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On at least one of the machines in question, wasn't it the case that > node 0 had all the memory and node 1 had all the CPUs? In that case, you > would have to boot off a memoryless node? And as long as that is a > physically valid configuration, the kernel should handle it. Agreed. Here's the patch that should fix it: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/23/332 On Jan 23, 2008 9:52 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > I bet we didn't notice this breaking because SLUB became the default and > SLAB isn't on in the test.kernel.org testing, for instance. Perhaps we > should add a second set of runs for some of the boxes there to run with > CONFIG_SLAB on? Sure. On Jan 23, 2008 9:52 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > I'm curious if we know, for sure, of a kernel with CONFIG_SLAB=y that > has booted all of the boxes reporting issues? That is, did they all work > with 2.6.23? I think Mel said that their configuration did work with 2.6.23 although I also wonder how that's possible. AFAIK there has been some changes in the page allocator that might explain this. That is, if kmem_getpages() returned pages for memoryless node before, bootstrap would have worked. Pekka