From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <christoph@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Received: from omx2.sgi.com (omx2-ext.sgi.com [192.48.171.19])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5129967BD7
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:49:10 +1000 (EST)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG in __cache_alloc_node at linux-2.6.git/mm/slab.c:3177!
In-Reply-To: <20061019163044.GB5819@krispykreme>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610190947110.8310@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
References: <1161026409.31903.15.camel@farscape>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0610161221300.6908@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<1161031821.31903.28.camel@farscape>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0610161630430.8341@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<17717.50596.248553.816155@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0610180811040.27096@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<17718.39522.456361.987639@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0610181448250.30710@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<17719.1849.245776.4501@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0610190906490.7852@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<20061019163044.GB5819@krispykreme>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: Christoph Lameter <christoph@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Anton Blanchard wrote:

> > Would you please make memory available on the node that you bootstrap 
> > the slab allocator on? numa_node_id() must point to a node that has memory 
> > available.
> 
> So we've gone from something that worked around sub optimal memory
> layouts to something that panics. Sounds like a step backwards to me.

Could you confirm that there is indeed no memory on node 0? 

The expectation to have memory available on the node that you 
bootstrap on is not unrealistic.