On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:57:08 -0800 Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Santosh Shilimkar > <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > >> [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1312.1/03770.html > > Andrew, > > Did you bisect which patch in that 23 patchset cause your system have problem? > Yes - it was caused by the patch which that email was replying to. "[PATCH v3 13/23] mm/lib/swiotlb: Use memblock apis for earlymemory allocations". -- 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>