Oscar Salvador <osalvador.vilardaga@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > El dc., 11 jul. 2018 , 15:56, Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxx> va > escriure: > >> I am OK, if this patch is removed from Baoquan's series. But, I would >> still like to get rid of CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_ALLOC_MEM_MAP_TOGETHER, I >> can work on this in my sparse_init re-write series. ppc64 should >> really fallback safely to small chunks allocs, and if it does not >> there is some existing bug. Michael please send the config that you >> used. >> >> Thank you, >> Pavel >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 9:37 AM Oscar Salvador >> <osalvador@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:49:58PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> > > akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: >> > > > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2018-07-10-16-50 has been uploaded to >> > > > >> > > > http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/ >> > > ... >> > > >> > > > * mm-sparse-add-a-static-variable-nr_present_sections.patch >> > > > * mm-sparsemem-defer-the-ms-section_mem_map-clearing.patch >> > > > * mm-sparsemem-defer-the-ms-section_mem_map-clearing-fix.patch >> > > > * >> mm-sparse-add-a-new-parameter-data_unit_size-for-alloc_usemap_and_memmap.patch >> > > > * mm-sparse-optimize-memmap-allocation-during-sparse_init.patch >> > > > * >> mm-sparse-optimize-memmap-allocation-during-sparse_init-checkpatch-fixes.patch >> > > >> > > > * mm-sparse-remove-config_sparsemem_alloc_mem_map_together.patch >> > > >> > > This seems to be breaking my powerpc pseries qemu boots. >> > > >> > > The boot log with some extra debug shows eg: >> > > >> > > $ make pseries_le_defconfig >> > >> > Could you please share the config? >> > I was not able to find such config in the kernel tree. >> >> > I just roughly check, but if I checked the right place, > vmemmap_populated() checks for the section to contain the flags we are > setting in sparse_init_one_section(). Yes. > But with this patch, we populate first everything, and then we call > sparse_init_one_section() in sparse_init(). > As I said I could be mistaken because I just checked the surface. Yeah I think that's correct. This might just be a bug in our code, let me look at it a bit. cheers
