lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: kexec boot regression
    Jens Axboe wrote:
    > On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
    >> Jens Axboe wrote:
    >>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
    >>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
    >>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
    >>>>>> [PATCH] x86/pci: intel ioh bus num reg accessing fix
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> it is above 0x100, so if mmconf is not enable, need to skip it
    >>>>> This works, it kexecs kernels fine. But since 2.6.32 doesn't have the
    >>>>> mmconf problem to begin with, are we now just working around the issue?
    >>>>> SRAT still reports issues, numa doesn't work.
    >>>> that patch will be bullet proof... we need it.
    >>>>
    >>>> also still need to figure out why memmap range is not passed properly.
    >>>>
    >>>> do you mean 2.6.32 kexec 2.6.32 it have worked mmconf and numa in
    >>>> second kernel?
    >>> Yes, 2.6.32 booted and 2.6.32 kexec'ed works just fine, no SRAT
    >>> complaints and NUMA works fine.
    >> do you need
    >> memmap=62G@4G
    >> in this case?
    >
    > Yes, I've needed that always.

    good,

    can you enable debug option in kexec to see why kexec can not pass whole 38? range to second kernel?

    YH


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-15 21:25    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean