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
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:
> >>>> 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?

Not getting any output so far, -d doesn't do much. Poking around in the
source...

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-15 21:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans