[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+8MBbL4nqTxi14Lz92PRFZeobHBLimSfcTH=9HaZBcEUpLVOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:54:12 -0700
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] Use 2GB memory block size on large-memory x86-64 systems
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>> It seems that many systems with large amounts of memory
>> will have a nicely aligned max_pfn ... so they will get
>> the 2GB block size. If they don't have a well aligned
>> max_pfn, then they need to use a smaller size to avoid
>> the crash I saw.
>
> Good to me.
Still stuff going on that I don't understand here. I increased the amount of
mirrored memory in this machine which moved max_pfn to 0x7560000
and probe_memory_block_size() picked 512MB as the memory_block_size,
which seemed plausible.
But my kernel still crashed during boot with this value. :-(
Forcing the block size to 128M made the system boot.
Maybe all the holes in the e820 map matter too (specifically the
alignment of the holes)?
-Tony
--
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