[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200811101928.04565.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:28:03 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: CONFIG_NUMA breaks hibernation on x86-32 with PAE
On Monday, 10 of November 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> >
> > No good ideas - the bug description gives me the impression of memory
> > maps save/restore hickup in the hibernation code - and memory maps are
> > pretty much the only thing that are significantly different on NUMA.
>
> I assume the problem happened on a single node system.
> On single node the memory map should be actually quite similar
> to the UMA case.
It is. However, the problem is 100% reproducible on any 32-bit single-node
system with CONFIG_NUMA set, from what I can tell.
It doesn't happen if the kernel is booted with highmem=0, so it looks like
the code that saves highmem causes the problem to happen. However, this
same code works well for all of the !CONFIG_NUMA cases and practically only
the only non-open-coded it uses is kmap_atomic().
> One possibility would be to bisect if it ever worked?
Not sure it did, probably not. :-(
BTW, can you please tell me why HIGHMEM64G is requisite for NUMA on 32-bit?
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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