Re: kexec boot regression

[Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> 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?

Yes:

CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=6

What I don't get is that 2.6.32 and -git print the same PXM map, and in
both cases it's totalling exactly 64G. Yet it says:

SRAT: PXMs only cover 49035MB of your 65419MB e820 RAM. Not used.

-- 
Jens Axboe