Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750754AbVJaBN5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:13:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751268AbVJaBN5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:13:57 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:37271 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750754AbVJaBN5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:13:57 -0500 From: Andi Kleen To: Bob Picco Subject: Re: x86_64: 2.6.14 with NUMA panics at boot Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 03:12:17 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Cc: Dave Hansen , Janne M O Heikkinen , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <1130607017.12551.5.camel@localhost> <20051031001727.GC6019@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20051031001727.GC6019@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510310312.18395.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1462 Lines: 32 On Monday 31 October 2005 01:17, Bob Picco wrote: > This is a slightly modified patch I used on x86_64 for EXTREME testing. The > original 2.6.13-rc1-mhp1 patch didn't apply cleanly against 2.6.14. It will > apply with this untested patch. The patch needs to have arch_sparse_init > which is only active for SPARSEMEM. This patch was just for testing EXTREME > on x86_64 NUMA and needs review. > > I think the bootmem allocator is being used before initialized. This > wouldn't have happened before SPARSEMEM_EXTREME became the default. > > If you feel my analysis is correct, I'll generate a cleaner patch and > test on my 4 way. Ok the question is - why did nobody submit this patch in time? When sparse was merged I assumed folks would actually test and maintain it. But that doesn't seem to be the case? Somewhat surprising. I personally don't care much about sparsemem right now because it doesn't have any advantage and if it's unmaintained would consider to mark it CONFIG_BROKEN. That's simply because we can't have highly experimental CONFIGs in a production kernel that unsuspecting users can just set and break their configuration. Dave, is there someone in charge for sparsemem on x86-64? -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/