Yinghai, On Friday 24 January 2014 12:55 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Linus's current tree doesn't boot on an 8-node/1TB NUMA system that I >> > have. Its reboots are *LONG*, so I haven't fully bisected it, but it's >> > down to a just a few commits, most of which are changes to the memblock >> > code. Since the panic is in the memblock code, it looks like a >> > no-brainer. It's almost certainly the code from Santosh or Grygorii >> > that's triggering this. >> > >> > Config and good/bad dmesg with memblock=debug are here: >> > >> > http://sr71.net/~dave/intel/3.13/ >> > >> > Please let me know if you need it bisected further than this. > Please check attached patch, and it should fix the problem. > [...] > > Subject: [PATCH] x86: Fix numa with reverting wrong memblock setting. > > Dave reported Numa on x86 is broken on system with 1T memory. > > It turns out > | commit 5b6e529521d35e1bcaa0fe43456d1bbb335cae5d > | Author: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> > | Date: Tue Jan 21 15:50:03 2014 -0800 > | > | x86: memblock: set current limit to max low memory address > > set limit to low wrongly. > > max_low_pfn_mapped is different from max_pfn_mapped. > max_low_pfn_mapped is always under 4G. > > That will memblock_alloc_nid all go under 4G. > > Revert that offending patch. > > Reported-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This mostly will fix the $subject issue but the regression reported by Andrew [1] will surface with the revert. Its clear now that even though commit fixed the issue, it wasn't the fix. Would be great if you can have a look at the thread. Regards, Santosh [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1312.1/03770.html -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>