On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >>> Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >>>>>>> Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [PATCH] x86/pci: intel ioh bus num reg accessing fix > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is above 0x100, so if mmconf is not enable, need to skip it > >>>>>>>>>>>> This works, it kexecs kernels fine. But since 2.6.32 doesn't have the > >>>>>>>>>>>> mmconf problem to begin with, are we now just working around the issue? > >>>>>>>>>>>> SRAT still reports issues, numa doesn't work. > >>>>>>>>>>> that patch will be bullet proof... we need it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> also still need to figure out why memmap range is not passed properly. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> do you mean 2.6.32 kexec 2.6.32 it have worked mmconf and numa in > >>>>>>>>>>> second kernel? > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, 2.6.32 booted and 2.6.32 kexec'ed works just fine, no SRAT > >>>>>>>>>> complaints and NUMA works fine. > >>>>>>>>> do you need > >>>>>>>>> memmap=62G@4G > >>>>>>>>> in this case? > >>>>>>>> Yes, I've needed that always. > >>>>>>> good, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> can you enable debug option in kexec to see why kexec can not pass > >>>>>>> whole 38? range to second kernel? > >>>>>> Not getting any output so far, -d doesn't do much. Poking around in the > >>>>>> source... > >>>>> OK, cold boot and kexec 2.0.1 gets all 39 ranges passed properly to > >>>>> kexec'ed kernels. Since the older kexec stopped at range 30 (31 ranges > >>>>> total), that smells like just a kexec bug. Retesting -git... > >>>> Current -git works fine when all the ranges are passed correctly. So, I > >>>> think, the only existing regression is the SRAT issue. > >>> did you change node_shift? > >> Yes: > >> > >> CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=6 > >> > >> What I don't get is that 2.6.32 and -git print the same PXM map, and in > >> both cases it's totalling exactly 64G. Yet it says: > >> > >> SRAT: PXMs only cover 49035MB of your 65419MB e820 RAM. Not used. > > > > Clue: > > > > [ 0.000000] SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 0-80000000 > > [ 0.000000] SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 100000000-480000000 > > [ 0.000000] SRAT: Node 2 PXM 1 480000000-880000000 > > [ 0.000000] SRAT: Node 1 PXM 2 880000000-c80000000 > > [ 0.000000] SRAT: Node 3 PXM 3 c80000000-1080000000 > > [ 0.000000] NUMA: Using 31 for the hash shift. > > [ 0.000000] pxm0: 0-480000 (4718592), absent 553990 > > [ 0.000000] pxm1: 880000-c80000 (4194304), absent 0 > > [ 0.000000] pxm2: 480000-880000 (4194304), absent 4194304 > > [ 0.000000] pxm3: c80000-1080000 (4194304), absent 0 > > [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXMs only cover 49035MB of your 65419MB e820 RAM. Not used. > > [ 0.000000] SRAT: SRAT not used. > > > > oh, i post one patch last week, > > can you check it? Sure, let me try it. I already found out that commit 8716273c is the guilty one (x86: Export srat physical topology). -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
