From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932308Ab0CaVON (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:14:13 -0400 Received: from mail-iw0-f202.google.com ([209.85.223.202]:35547 "EHLO mail-iw0-f202.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932141Ab0CaVOL (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:14:11 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=H7f11CbEvlenW+Gk8NtWBKDjyF8FKeHWkBtiU6AhA2WHUmO5Avb2mBVgLO7hJ/MNWZ 7trY5VESYjsYf4S78lgXa9THDXKWDCEm1EuU3ehOqd1b9I/QCFQZeK6WJmFV+ejcvrmY Io6BCpuE41naD1FQhG/cLAwEgSRXFI5rYDPa0= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100331185916.GA12306@elte.hu> References: <4BB2EB1B.8090303@zytor.com> <20100331185916.GA12306@elte.hu> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 07:14:08 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Config NO_BOOTMEM breaks my amd64 box From: Dave Airlie To: Ingo Molnar Cc: James Morris , "H. Peter Anvin" , Yinghai Lu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, airlied@linux.ie, Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Pekka Enberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * James Morris wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> >> > On 03/30/2010 09:49 PM, James Morris wrote: >> > > >> > > Please make NO_BOOTMEM default to n, at least for amd64, where I've found >> > > that it leads to all kinds of strange, undebuggable boot hangs and errors >> > > (with relatively current Fedora development userland). >> > >> > Have you tested it with the latest fixes that are now in Linus' tree (-rc3)? >> >> Yes, it was happening with -rc3. > > Could you please send the bootlog that Yinghai asked for, plus also one that > you get with NO_BOOTMEM turned off (for comparison)? > > Also, when did you first hit this bug? This code has been upstream for almost > a month, and it was in linux-next before that - so you should have hit this > much sooner. A rough timeframe would suffice. I suppose you were booting > upstream kernels during the merge window as well? > > We can flip the default around if there's no fix available based on the > bootlogs. (Plus the help text should definitely be improved.) > Are you testing this btw with initramfs/initrds? I suspect lots of testing is being done by people on monolithic kernels, this is just a misc guess, considering I couldn't boot from when this landed until rc3 with this option on a basic 32-bit install on a dual-core 64-bit CPU, it suggested a hole of some sort in the test coverage. Dave