[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111206075530.GA3105@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:55:31 +0100
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH repost] mm,x86: remove debug_pagealloc_enabled
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:54:34PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 12:06:56PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > When (no)bootmem finish operation, it pass pages to buddy allocator.
> > > > Since debug_pagealloc_enabled is not set, we will do not protect pages,
> > > > what is not what we want with CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC=y.
> > > >
> > > > To fix remove debug_pagealloc_enabled. That variable was introduced by
> > > > commit 12d6f21e "x86: do not PSE on CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC=y" to get
> > > > more CPA (change page attribude) code testing. But currently we have
> > > > CONFIG_CPA_DEBUG, which test CPA.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 6 ------
> > > > include/linux/mm.h | 10 ----------
> > > > init/main.c | 5 -----
> > > > mm/debug-pagealloc.c | 3 ---
> > > > 4 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > I'm getting this boot crash with the patch applied:
> >
> > I'm sorry for breaking the boot. I tried to reproduce problem
> > on my laptop, but failed. I plan to test patch with your
> > config on some other machines.
> >
> > On the meantime can you test attached incremental patch and
> > see if it workaround the crash? I suspect memblock reuse pages
> > that it passed already to buddy allocator.
>
> That will take some time - so if you could try my config on
> another box that would be great. There isnt anything special
> about that box.
I reproduced with limiting memory via mem=1G and increase
find_range_array count argument, what caused "struct range"
array was bigger and needed more memory. With that I can
confirm that previous patch fixes the problem. I think
it's the simplest possible fix, I'll post patch with
changelog and comment in the next email.
Stanislaw
--
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