kexec boot regression
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: [mmotm][PATCH 4/5] mm : add lowmem detection logic
Next: move eject code from zd1211rw to usb-storage
From: Jens Axboe on 15 Dec 2009 15:20 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(a)4G > in this case? Yes, I've needed that always. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Yinghai Lu on 15 Dec 2009 15:30 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(a)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? YH -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Jens Axboe on 15 Dec 2009 15:50 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(a)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... -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Jens Axboe on 15 Dec 2009 16:00 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(a)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... -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Jens Axboe on 15 Dec 2009 16:10
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(a)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. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |