From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8F3C433EF for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:29:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AB2116B0071; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 08:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A60386B0073; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 08:29:26 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 94F106B0074; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 08:29:26 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0126.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.126]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A636B0071 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 08:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3965A1838A412 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:29:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78898337112.21.0C01271 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37080A0004 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818A51F384; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:29:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1639056554; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=qmqs+hpSxscaHl8NkKgzAtr87Qun/Wys2qUlkbqxvvQ=; b=HLosNG5dXKEUH6TVpU+Aokzdig6nCGS8xKykm9/jd1ut7F9zBZHVqkyVYBJ2ucSR6oS6W3 BSmB6ZF9ITfnX48UGgW30cpIZqF2dbWRhNCvcUg9e7gydgJSUkm7Ac3xGO7FnRfBGBabLA dadsoCaq5DqSU0jBg3/NSBjK6ipBUpg= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.163.30.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51DF7A3B91; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:29:13 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Alexey Makhalov Cc: Dennis Zhou , Eric Dumazet , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , Oscar Salvador , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: fix panic in __alloc_pages Message-ID: References: <5239D699-523C-4F0C-923A-B068E476043E@vmware.com> <77BCF61E-224F-435D-8620-670C9E874A9A@vmware.com> <2291C572-3B22-4BE5-8C7A-0D6A4609547B@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: imf15.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=HLosNG5d; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass (imf15.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 37080A0004 X-Stat-Signature: ycp5ch5campxrb5kyfy7q5hxp8k7wog4 X-HE-Tag: 1639056554-934284 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu 09-12-21 10:23:52, Alexey Makhalov wrote: > > > > On Dec 9, 2021, at 1:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Thu 09-12-21 09:28:55, Alexey Makhalov wrote: > >> > >> > >> [ 0.081777] Node 4 uninitialized by the platform. Please report with boot dmesg. > >> [ 0.081790] Initmem setup node 4 [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000000] > >> ... > >> [ 0.086441] Node 127 uninitialized by the platform. Please report with boot dmesg. > >> [ 0.086454] Initmem setup node 127 [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000000] > > > > Interesting that only those two didn't get a proper arch specific > > initialization. Could you check why? I assume init_cpu_to_node > > doesn't see any CPU pointing at this node. Wondering why that would be > > the case but that can be a bug in the affinity tables. > > My bad shrinking. Not just these 2, but all possible and not present nodes from 4 to 127 > are having this message. Does that mean that your possible (but offline) cpus do not set their affinity? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs