From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CD36B0031 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:38:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-gg0-f172.google.com with SMTP id x14so851895ggx.17 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from bear.ext.ti.com (bear.ext.ti.com. [192.94.94.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s22si17467470yha.176.2014.01.23.22.38.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:38:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E20A56.1000507@ti.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:38:14 -0500 From: Santosh Shilimkar MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Panic on 8-node system in memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid() References: <52E19C7D.7050603@intel.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Dave Hansen , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Grygorii Strashko , Linux-MM , LKML , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton Yinghai, On Friday 24 January 2014 12:55 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: >> > Linus's current tree doesn't boot on an 8-node/1TB NUMA system that I >> > have. Its reboots are *LONG*, so I haven't fully bisected it, but it's >> > down to a just a few commits, most of which are changes to the memblock >> > code. Since the panic is in the memblock code, it looks like a >> > no-brainer. It's almost certainly the code from Santosh or Grygorii >> > that's triggering this. >> > >> > Config and good/bad dmesg with memblock=debug are here: >> > >> > http://sr71.net/~dave/intel/3.13/ >> > >> > Please let me know if you need it bisected further than this. > Please check attached patch, and it should fix the problem. > [...] > > Subject: [PATCH] x86: Fix numa with reverting wrong memblock setting. > > Dave reported Numa on x86 is broken on system with 1T memory. > > It turns out > | commit 5b6e529521d35e1bcaa0fe43456d1bbb335cae5d > | Author: Santosh Shilimkar > | Date: Tue Jan 21 15:50:03 2014 -0800 > | > | x86: memblock: set current limit to max low memory address > > set limit to low wrongly. > > max_low_pfn_mapped is different from max_pfn_mapped. > max_low_pfn_mapped is always under 4G. > > That will memblock_alloc_nid all go under 4G. > > Revert that offending patch. > > Reported-by: Dave Hansen > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu > > This mostly will fix the $subject issue but the regression reported by Andrew [1] will surface with the revert. Its clear now that even though commit fixed the issue, it wasn't the fix. Would be great if you can have a look at the thread. Regards, Santosh [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1312.1/03770.html -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org