Re: kexec boot regression

Jens Axboe
2009-12-15T21:01:51Z

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.

--
Jens Axboe