On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > Whatever this was a problem fixed in the past or not, it's broken again > > > now > > > :( . It's possible that there is a __GFP_THISNODE that can be dropped > > > early > > > at boot-time that would also fix this problem in a way that doesn't > > > affect runtime (like altering cache_grow in my patch does). > > > > The dropping of GFP_THISNODE has the same effect as your patch. > > The dropping of it totally? If so, this patch might fix a boot but it'll > potentially be a performance regression on NUMA machines that only have > nodes with memory, right?
No the dropping during early allocations., > o 0 > o 2 > Nodes with regular memory > o 2 > Current running CPU 0 is associated with node 0 > Current node is 0 > > So node 2 has regular memory but it's trying to use node 0 at a glance. > I've attached the patch I used against 2.6.24-rc8. It includes the revert. We need the current processor to be attached to a node that has memory. We cannot fall back that early because the structures for the other nodes do not exist yet. > Online nodes > o 0 > o 2 > Nodes with regular memory > o 2 > Current running CPU 0 is associated with node 0 > Current node is 0 > o kmem_list3_init This needs to be node 2. > [c0000000005c3b40] c0000000000dadec .cache_grow+0x7c/0x338 > [c0000000005c3c00] c0000000000db54c .fallback_alloc+0x1c0/0x224 Fallback during bootstrap. -- 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/