[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080415202324.GA26710@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:23:24 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Yinghai.Lu@....com,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [bug] SLUB + mm/slab.c boot crash in -rc9
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> [...] increasing SECTION_SIZE_BITS in include/asm-x86/sparsemem.h from
> 26 to 27 makes it go away. (i.e. we use section chunks of 128 MB
> instead of 64 MB before) [...]
btw., here's the 'good' versus 'bad' bootup log (vanilla kernel spiced
with a few extra stats printed out [*]):
http://redhat.com/~mingo/misc/boot.26.log # bad
http://redhat.com/~mingo/misc/boot.27.log # good
the only difference is SECTION_SIZE_BITS == 26 versus 27.
looking at the dmesg diff, there's just minimal (and expected) offset
difference in some structure sizes. (more sparse maps use a bit more
memory)
Ingo
[*] in case you wonder why memory_section->map is twice its size - i
doubled it just to eliminate any doubts about off-by-one errors.
Their natural size, as returned by bootmem, was 512KB plus 16 bytes
(!), which seemed a bit weird. Probably a section entry came between
two memory map allocations?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists