Hi, On Jan 23, 2008 9:52 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On at least one of the machines in question, wasn't it the case that > node 0 had all the memory and node 1 had all the CPUs? In that case, you > would have to boot off a memoryless node? And as long as that is a > physically valid configuration, the kernel should handle it.
Agreed. Here's the patch that should fix it: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/23/332 On Jan 23, 2008 9:52 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I bet we didn't notice this breaking because SLUB became the default and > SLAB isn't on in the test.kernel.org testing, for instance. Perhaps we > should add a second set of runs for some of the boxes there to run with > CONFIG_SLAB on? Sure. On Jan 23, 2008 9:52 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm curious if we know, for sure, of a kernel with CONFIG_SLAB=y that > has booted all of the boxes reporting issues? That is, did they all work > with 2.6.23? I think Mel said that their configuration did work with 2.6.23 although I also wonder how that's possible. AFAIK there has been some changes in the page allocator that might explain this. That is, if kmem_getpages() returned pages for memoryless node before, bootstrap would have worked. Pekka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
