Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754255AbYAWVDI (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:03:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752080AbYAWVCz (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:02:55 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.184]:13944 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752079AbYAWVCx (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:02:53 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=B+Den6IOIBFv5tR62uWTaw8XcGUaQpM6wSt+ciW/gxV4/jstX7A7OkAgPWaPIH2nYP741tmnV6jIHogd2v5vg/HDDnY0Y0lhAkp0y05ggbzbXpNNyADIURwjCI97fj+hbHaofByzCcmtZlteWFltEmHamWGh7VSAy4a50QP5/0A= Message-ID: <84144f020801231302g2cafdda9kf7f916121dc56aa5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:02:51 +0200 From: "Pekka Enberg" To: "Nishanth Aravamudan" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix boot problem in situations where the boot CPU is running on a memoryless node Cc: "Mel Gorman" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, "Christoph Lameter" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" , lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, "Linux MM" , "Olaf Hering" In-Reply-To: <20080123195220.GB3848@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080123075821.GA17713@aepfle.de> <20080123121459.GA18631@aepfle.de> <20080123125236.GA18876@aepfle.de> <20080123135513.GA14175@csn.ul.ie> <20080123155655.GB20156@csn.ul.ie> <20080123195220.GB3848@us.ibm.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: c43647d5bd4eaf08 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1554 Lines: 37 Hi, On Jan 23, 2008 9:52 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On at least one of the machines in question, wasn't it the case that > node 0 had all the memory and node 1 had all the CPUs? In that case, you > would have to boot off a memoryless node? And as long as that is a > physically valid configuration, the kernel should handle it. Agreed. Here's the patch that should fix it: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/23/332 On Jan 23, 2008 9:52 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > I bet we didn't notice this breaking because SLUB became the default and > SLAB isn't on in the test.kernel.org testing, for instance. Perhaps we > should add a second set of runs for some of the boxes there to run with > CONFIG_SLAB on? Sure. On Jan 23, 2008 9:52 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > I'm curious if we know, for sure, of a kernel with CONFIG_SLAB=y that > has booted all of the boxes reporting issues? That is, did they all work > with 2.6.23? I think Mel said that their configuration did work with 2.6.23 although I also wonder how that's possible. AFAIK there has been some changes in the page allocator that might explain this. That is, if kmem_getpages() returned pages for memoryless node before, bootstrap would have worked. Pekka -- 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/