Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 May 2006 22:13:58 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: assert/crash in __rmqueue() when enabling CONFIG_NUMA |
| |
* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> > > The problem is that nobody regression tests it. So even if you fix it > > > now it will be likely broken again in a few months. > > > > We can add a box to the test.kernel.org harness easily enough, and > > it will show up with an eerie red glow. > > Single box is not enough - there are many possible combinations (e.g. > Opteron NUMA, IBM NUMA, no NUMA small box, big box with weird mappings > etc.). Basically you would need a real tester base.
nah. And the fact that i could boot this on a non-NUMA box already unearthed a weakness in the buddy allocator. (it should have much clearer asserts about mis-sized zones - it's not the first time we had them and they are hard to debug) So consider this a debugging feature. It also found other bugs, so even if nobody but me uses it, it's useful.
ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |