[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1262187344.7135.230.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:35:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: ACPI warning from alloc_pages_nodemask on boot (2.6.33
regression)
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 15:21 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> [ 1.630020] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> [ 1.630026] WARNING: at mm/page_alloc.c:1812 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x617/0x730()
> >
> > if (order >= MAX_ORDER) {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN));
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > I don't know what the mm alloc code is complaining about here.
> >> [ 1.630028] Hardware name: System Product Name
> >> [ 1.630029] Modules linked in:
> >> [ 1.630032] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.33-rc2 #4
> >> [ 1.630034] Call Trace:
> >> [ 1.630064] [<ffffffff812cae3e>] acpi_os_allocate+0x25/0x27
Right, so ACPI is trying to allocate something larger than 2^MAX_ORDER
pages, which on x86 computes to 4K * 2^11 = 8M.
That's not going to work.
Did this machine properly boot before? I seem to remember people working
on moving away from bootmem and getting th page/slab stuff up and
running sooner, it might be fallout from that...
--
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