On 01/24/2014 09:45 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> There are two failure modes I'm seeing: one when (failing to) allocate >> the first node's mem_map[], and a second where it oopses accessing the >> numa_distance[] table. This is the numa_distance[] one, and it happens >> even with the patch you suggested applied. >> >>> [ 0.000000] memblock_find_in_range_node():239 >>> [ 0.000000] __memblock_find_range_top_down():150 >>> [ 0.000000] __memblock_find_range_top_down():152 i: 600000001 >>> [ 0.000000] memblock_find_in_range_node():241 ret: 2147479552 >>> [ 0.000000] memblock_reserve: [0x0000007ffff000-0x0000007ffff03f] flags 0x0 numa_set_distance+0xd2/0x252 > > that address is wrong. > > Can you post whole log with current linus' tree + two patches that I > sent out yesterday? Here you go. It's still spitting out memblock_reserve messages to the console. I'm not sure if it's making _some_ progress or not. https://www.sr71.net/~dave/intel/3.13/dmesg.with-2-patches But, it's certainly not booting. Do you want to see it without memblock=debug? -- 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>