From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-bk0-f52.google.com (mail-bk0-f52.google.com [209.85.214.52]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA2F6B0036 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:57:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-bk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e11so952487bkh.11 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:57:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com (mail-ie0-x235.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dp1si1746248bkc.45.2014.01.23.22.57.09 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:57:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id tq11so2442734ieb.12 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:57:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <52E20A56.1000507@ti.com> References: <52E19C7D.7050603@intel.com> <52E20A56.1000507@ti.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:57:08 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Panic on 8-node system in memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid() From: Yinghai Lu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Santosh Shilimkar Cc: Dave Hansen , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Grygorii Strashko , Linux-MM , LKML , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > 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. >> [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1312.1/03770.html Andrew, Did you bisect which patch in that 23 patchset cause your system have problem? Thanks Yinghai -- 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