On Thu, 2009-12-31 at 02:05 +0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:35:44 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 15:21 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > >> [ 1.630020] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > >> [ 1.630026] WARNING: at mm/page_alloc.c:1812 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x617/0x730()
> > > >
> > > > if (order >= MAX_ORDER) {
> > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN));
> > > > return NULL;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what the mm alloc code is complaining about here.
> >
> > > >> [ 1.630028] Hardware name: System Product Name
> > > >> [ 1.630029] Modules linked in:
> > > >> [ 1.630032] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.33-rc2 #4
> > > >> [ 1.630034] Call Trace:
> >
> > > >> [ 1.630064] [<ffffffff812cae3e>] acpi_os_allocate+0x25/0x27
> >
> > Right, so ACPI is trying to allocate something larger than 2^MAX_ORDER
> > pages, which on x86 computes to 4K * 2^11 = 8M.
> >
> > That's not going to work.
> >
> > Did this machine properly boot before? I seem to remember people working
> > on moving away from bootmem and getting th page/slab stuff up and
> > running sooner, it might be fallout from that...
> >
>
> Yes, and it still boots now.
>
we have rootcaused the problem.
please refer to http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14954
thanks,
rui
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
