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]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans