Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2009 11:36:08 -0500 | From | Jack Steiner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix early panic issue on machines with memless node |
| |
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:32:36PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2009, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > Kernel 2.6.30-rc4 panic with boot parameter mem=2G on Nehalem machine. > > The machines has 2 nodes and every node has about 3G memory. > > > > Alex Shi did a good bisect and located the bad patch. > > > > commit dc098551918093901d8ac8936e9d1a1b891b56ed > > Author: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com> > > Date: Fri Apr 17 09:22:42 2009 -0500 > > > > x86/uv: fix init of memory-less nodes > > > > Add support for nodes that have cpus but no memory. > > The current code was failing to add these nodes > > to the nodes_present_map. > > > > v2: Fixes case caught by David Rientjes - missed support > > for the x2apic SRAT table. > > > > [ Impact: fix potential boot crash on memory-less UV nodes. ] > > > > Reported-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> > > Signed-off-by: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com> > > LKML-Reference: <20090417142242.GA23743@sgi.com> > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > > > > > > > With earlyprintk boot parameter, we captured below dump info. > > > > <6>bootmem::alloc_bootmem_core nid=0 size=0 [0 pages] align=1000 goal=1000000 lim0 > > PANIC: early exception 06 rip 10:ffffffff80a2fbe4 error 0 cr2 0 > > Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.30-rc4-ymz #3 > > Call Trace: > > [<ffffffff80a1a195>] ? early_idt_handler+0x55/0x68 > > [<ffffffff80a2fbe4>] ? alloc_bootmem_core+0x91/0x2ae > > [<ffffffff80a2fbdc>] ? alloc_bootmem_core+0x89/0x2ae > > [<ffffffff80a2fe74>] ? ___alloc_bootmem_nopanic+0x73/0xab > > [<ffffffff80a2af73>] ? early_node_mem+0x54/0x78 > > [<ffffffff80a2b0ed>] ? setup_node_bootmem+0x156/0x282 > > [<ffffffff80a2b880>] ? acpi_scan_nodes+0x207/0x303 > > [<ffffffff80a2b255>] ? initmem_init+0x3c/0x14c > > [<ffffffff80a1e33b>] ? setup_arch+0x5ba/0x760 > > [<ffffffff80a2e904>] ? cgroup_init_subsys+0xfc/0x105 > > [<ffffffff80a2ea5f>] ? cgroup_init_early+0x152/0x163 > > [<ffffffff80a1a915>] ? start_kernel+0x84/0x35e > > [<ffffffff80a1a37e>] ? x86_64_start_kernel+0xe5/0xeb > > RIP alloc_bootmem_core+0x91/0x2ae > > > > Consider below call chain: > > acpi_scan_nodes => > > ???setup_node_bootmem > > ??? (twice) => ???early_node_mem > > > > At begining, acpi_scan_nodes filters out memless nodes by calling > > unparse_node. Patch ???dc098551918 adds the node back actually. > > ???acpi_scan_nodes has many comments around ???unparse_node. > > > > Below patch fixes it with node memory checking. Another method is just > > to revert the bad patch. > > > > ???David Rientjes, ???Jack Steiner, > > Would you check if below patch satisfy your original objective? > > > > Could you try this instead?
I was able to duplicate your original problem. Your patch below solves the problem. AFAICT, it causes no new reqgressions to the various configurations that I'm testing. (I'll add the "mem=2G" to my configs that I test).
However, I see a new regression that was not present a couple of weeks ago. Configurations that have nodes with cpus and no memory panic during boot. This occurs both with and without your patch and is not related to "mem=".
I need to isolate the problem but here is the stack trace. : Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.30-rc4-next-20090505-medusa #12 Call Trace: [<ffffffff806b919e>] early_idt_handler+0x5e/0x71 [<ffffffff802920fe>] ? build_zonelists_node+0x4c/0x8d [<ffffffff8029333f>] __build_all_zonelists+0x1ae/0x55a [<ffffffff80293932>] build_all_zonelists+0x1b5/0x263 [<ffffffff806b9b6e>] start_kernel+0x17a/0x3c5 [<ffffffff806b9140>] ? early_idt_handler+0x0/0x71 [<ffffffff806b92a7>] x86_64_start_reservations+0xae/0xb2 [<ffffffff806b93fd>] x86_64_start_kernel+0x152/0x161
> > > srat: do not register nodes beyond e820 map > > The mem= option will truncate the memory map at a specified address so > it's not possible to register nodes with memory beyond the e820 upper > bound. > > unparse_node() is only called when then node had memory associated with > it, although with the mem= option it is no longer addressable. > > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> > --- > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c > --- a/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c > @@ -361,6 +361,7 @@ static void __init unparse_node(int node) > { > int i; > node_clear(node, nodes_parsed); > + node_clear(node, cpu_nodes_parsed); > for (i = 0; i < MAX_LOCAL_APIC; i++) { > if (apicid_to_node[i] == node) > apicid_to_node[i] = NUMA_NO_NODE;
| |