Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sun, 21 May 2006 12:08:43 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes |
| |
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote: >
> > Anyway, I just don't get how this code can work. We have an e820 map with > > up to 128 entries (this machine has ten) and we're trying to scrunch that > > all into the four-entry early_node_map[]. > > > > Missing E820MAX was a mistake. On x86_64, CONFIG_MAX_ACTIVE_REGIONS should > have been used. I didn't expect x86_64 to have so many memory holes.
x86 uses 128 e820 slots too.
> > > On my little x86 PC: > > > > BIOS-provided physical RAM map: > > BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009bc00 (usable) > > BIOS-e820: 000000000009bc00 - 000000000009c000 (reserved) > > BIOS-e820: 00000000000e0000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved) > > BIOS-e820: 0000000000100000 - 000000000ffc0000 (usable) > > BIOS-e820: 000000000ffc0000 - 000000000fff8000 (ACPI data) > > BIOS-e820: 000000000fff8000 - 0000000010000000 (ACPI NVS) > > BIOS-e820: 00000000fec00000 - 00000000fec01000 (reserved) > > BIOS-e820: 00000000fee00000 - 00000000fee01000 (reserved) > > BIOS-e820: 00000000ffb80000 - 00000000ffc00000 (reserved) > > BIOS-e820: 00000000fff00000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved) > > 0MB HIGHMEM available. > > 255MB LOWMEM available. > > found SMP MP-table at 000ff780 > > Range (nid 0) 0 -> 65472, max 4 > > On node 0 totalpages: 65472 > > DMA zone: 4096 pages, LIFO batch:0 > > Normal zone: 61376 pages, LIFO batch:15 > > > > So here, the architecture code only called add_active_range() the once, for > > the entire memory map. > > Because in this case, the architecture reported that there was just one > range of available pages with no holes.
So.. we're registering a simgle blob of pfns which includes the "reserved" memory as well as the "ACPI data" and the "ACPI NVS" (with an apparent off-by-one here).
How come the machine still works? I guess the architecture went and marked those pfns reserved.
> > If so, perhaps the bug is that the x86_64 code isn't doing that. And that > > x86 isn't doing it for some people either. > > > > I'm hoping in this case that having MAX_ACTIVE_REGIONS match E820MAX will > fix the issue on your machine.
I expect it will.
One does wonder whether it's worth all this fuss though. It's only a 24-byte structure and it's all thrown away in free_initmem(). One _could_ just go and do
#define MAX_ACTIVE_REGIONS 10000
and be happy.
> I'm still confused why Christian's failed > to boot with the patch backed out though.
He didn't get any "Too many memory regions" messages, so it's something different.
Maybe he hit my off-by-one on his "ACPI data"?
hm, I didn't mention this in the earlier email. On my x86 I have
BIOS-provided physical RAM map: BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009bc00 (usable) BIOS-e820: 000000000009bc00 - 000000000009c000 (reserved) BIOS-e820: 00000000000e0000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved) BIOS-e820: 0000000000100000 - 000000000ffc0000 (usable) BIOS-e820: 000000000ffc0000 - 000000000fff8000 (ACPI data) BIOS-e820: 000000000fff8000 - 0000000010000000 (ACPI NVS) BIOS-e820: 00000000fec00000 - 00000000fec01000 (reserved) BIOS-e820: 00000000fee00000 - 00000000fee01000 (reserved) BIOS-e820: 00000000ffb80000 - 00000000ffc00000 (reserved) BIOS-e820: 00000000fff00000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved)
I added some debug and saw that add_active_range() was getting a start_pfn=0 and an end_pfn which corresponds with 0x0fffc000. So my "ACPI NVS" is getting chopped off.
If Christian is seeing a similar thing then his "ACPI data" will be getting only part-registered.
I'd suggest that the next rev be liberal in its printking. This is the debug patch I used:
mm/page_alloc.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff -puN mm/page_alloc.c~a mm/page_alloc.c --- devel/mm/page_alloc.c~a 2006-05-20 13:19:58.000000000 -0700 +++ devel-akpm/mm/page_alloc.c 2006-05-20 13:20:42.000000000 -0700 @@ -2463,22 +2463,36 @@ void __init add_active_range(unsigned in unsigned long end_pfn) { unsigned int i; - printk(KERN_DEBUG "Range (%d) %lu -> %lu\n", nid, start_pfn, end_pfn); + + printk("Range (nid %d) %lu -> %lu, max %d\n", + nid, start_pfn, end_pfn, MAX_ACTIVE_REGIONS - 1); /* Merge with existing active regions if possible */ for (i = 0; early_node_map[i].end_pfn; i++) { - if (early_node_map[i].nid != nid) + printk("i=%d early_node_map[i].nid=%d " + "early_node_map[i].start_pfn=%lu " + "early_node_map[i].end_pfn=%lu", + i, early_node_map[i].nid, + early_node_map[i].start_pfn, + early_node_map[i].end_pfn); + + if (early_node_map[i].nid != nid) { + printk(" continue 1\n"); continue; + } /* Skip if an existing region covers this new one */ if (start_pfn >= early_node_map[i].start_pfn && - end_pfn <= early_node_map[i].end_pfn) + end_pfn <= early_node_map[i].end_pfn) { + printk(" return 1\n"); return; + } /* Merge forward if suitable */ if (start_pfn <= early_node_map[i].end_pfn && end_pfn > early_node_map[i].end_pfn) { early_node_map[i].end_pfn = end_pfn; + printk(" return 2\n"); return; } @@ -2486,13 +2500,16 @@ void __init add_active_range(unsigned in if (start_pfn < early_node_map[i].end_pfn && end_pfn >= early_node_map[i].start_pfn) { early_node_map[i].start_pfn = start_pfn; + printk(" return 3\n"); return; } + printk("\n"); } /* Leave last entry NULL, we use range.end_pfn to terminate the walk */ if (i >= MAX_ACTIVE_REGIONS - 1) { - printk(KERN_ERR "Too many memory regions, truncating\n"); + printk(KERN_ERR "More than %d memory regions, truncating\n", + MAX_ACTIVE_REGIONS - 1); return; } _ - 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/
| |