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, 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). ok, my patch should fix that. YH -- 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
