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    [W:0.024 / U:30.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site