On 2021/4/28 13:59, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 07:08:59PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
On 2021/4/27 14:23, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:26:38PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
On 2021/4/26 13:20, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 03:51:56PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
On 2021/4/25 15:19, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 04:11:16PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
I tested this patchset(plus arm32 change, like arm64 does)
based on lts 5.10，add some debug log, the useful info shows
below, if we enable HOLES_IN_ZONE, no panic, any idea,
thanks.
Are there any changes on top of 5.10 except for pfn_valid() patch?
Do you see this panic on 5.10 without the changes?
Yes, there are some BSP support for arm board based on 5.10,
Is it possible to test 5.12?
Do you use SPARSMEM? If yes, what is your section size?
What is the value if CONFIG_FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER in your configuration?
Yes,
CONFIG_SPARSEMEM=y
CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_STATIC=y
CONFIG_FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER = 11
CONFIG_PAGE_OFFSET=0xC0000000
CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID=y
CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y
#define SECTION_SIZE_BITS 26
#define MAX_PHYSADDR_BITS 32
#define MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS 32
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
