[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQUAAQZ4RF9rTxthBCJAJyDkw1g3dckfeJ870gqK9Dzg9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:41:07 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
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 Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> Can you boot with "debug ignore_loglevel" so we can see following print out
>> for vmemmap?
>
> See attached. There are a few extra messages from my own debug printk()
> calls. It seems that we successfully deal with node 0 from topology_init()
> but die walking node 1. I see that the NODE_DATA limits for memory
> on node 1 were from 1d70000 to 3a00000. But when we get into
> register_mem_sect_under_node() we have rounded the start pfn down to
> 1d00000 ... and we panic processing that range (which is in a hole in e820).
>
> We seem to die here:
>
> for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) {
> int page_nid;
>
> page_nid = get_nid_for_pfn(pfn);
oh, no.
register_mem_sect_under_node() is assuming:
first section in the block is present and first page in that section is present.
--
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