lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    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
    >>> remove CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM ASAP.
    >>>
    >>> 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 <yinghai@kernel.org>

    ---
    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)
    {
    #ifdef CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM
    - return free_all_memory_core_early(NODE_DATA(0)->node_id);
    + return free_all_memory_core_early(MAX_NUMNODES);
    #else
    return free_all_bootmem_core(NODE_DATA(0)->bdata);
    #endif
    >
    > 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.

    Thanks

    Yinghai


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-01 01:59    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean