From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:03:10 +0100 (IST) From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Have ia64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes In-Reply-To: <20060514203158.216a966e.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20060508141030.26912.93090.sendpatchset@skynet> <20060508141211.26912.48278.sendpatchset@skynet> <20060514203158.216a966e.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Andy Whitcroft , davej@codemonkey.org.uk, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bob.picco@hp.com, ak@suse.de, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-ID: On Sun, 14 May 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > Mel Gorman wrote: >> >> Size zones and holes in an architecture independent manner for ia64. >> > > This one makes my ia64 die very early in boot. The trace is pretty useless. > > config at http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/config-ia64 > An indirect fix for this has been set out with a patchset with the subject "[PATCH 0/2] Fixes for node alignment and flatmem assumptions" . For arch-independent-zone-sizing, the issue was that FLATMEM assumes that NODE_DATA(0)->node_start_pfn == 0. This is not the case with arch-independent-zone-sizing and IA64. With arch-independent-zone-sizing, a nodes node_start_pfn will be at the first valid PFN. > > > Note the misaligned pfns. > You will still get the message about misaligned PFNs on IA64. This is because the lowest zone starts at the lowest available PFN which may not be 0 or any other aligned number. It shouldn't make a different - or at least I couldn't cause any problems. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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