[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: Config NO_BOOTMEM breaks my amd64 box
On 03/31/2010 04:34 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 03:47 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Well and that whole #ifdeffery is disgusting as well - even if the goal was to
>>> Please learn to use proper intermediate helper functions and at minimum put
>>> the conversion ugliness somewhere that doesnt intrude our daily flow in .c
>>> files. The best rule is to _never ever_ put an #ifdef construct into a .c
>>> file. It doesnt matter what the goal if the #ifdef is - such ugliness in code
>>> is never justified.
>> if you agree that i can have one nobootmem.c in mm/
> That would be better, or more commonly, use inlines.
> I'm still totally puzzled about this patch as well as the comment:
> +#if defined(CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM) && defined(MAX_NUMNODES)
> + /* In case some 32bit systems don't have RAM installed on node0 */
> + totalram_pages += free_all_memory_core_early(MAX_NUMNODES);
> +#else
> totalram_pages += free_all_bootmem();
> +#endif
> Why is that "32 bits" specific? Second, MAX_NUMNODES is defined
> whenever <linux/numa.h> is included, so what on Earth is this supposed
> to signify? Are you trying to say MAX_NUMNODES > 1? Or are you trying
> to say CONFIG_NUMA?

you are right, this one should be more clear.

Subject: [PATCH -v2] nobootmem, x86: Fix 32bit system without RAM on Node0

when 32bit numa is used, free_all_bootmem() will still only go over with
node id 0.

If node 0 doesn't have RAM installed, We need to go with node1
because early_node_map still use 1 for all ranges, and ram from node1
becom low ram.

Try to use MAX_NUMNODES like 64 numa does.

Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <>

mm/bootmem.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-2.6/mm/bootmem.c
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/bootmem.c
+++ linux-2.6/mm/bootmem.c
@@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem_no
unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem(void)
- return free_all_memory_core_early(NODE_DATA(0)->node_id);
+ return free_all_memory_core_early(MAX_NUMNODES);
return free_all_bootmem_core(NODE_DATA(0)->bdata);
> Furthermore, I really don't see the connection between this and James
> Morris' reported problem, which he reports as "amd64", which presumably
> is an x86-64 kernel and not 32 bits... James, is that correct? Any
> more details you can give about the system? I *really* don't want to go
> into cargo cult programming mode, that would suck eggs no matter what.

it happened one of my test setup, node0 ram disappear somehow.
and i found the 32bit numa doesn't work on that.



 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-01 01:59    [W:0.298 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site