On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? that looks like different problem. and it can not set memory mapping properly. can you send me .config ? Thanks Yinghai -- 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>