Re: kexec boot regression

Jens Axboe
2009-12-15T20:55:21Z

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...

--
Jens Axboe