On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 23:47 +, Vincent Caron wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:18 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:12 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:52 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 11:51 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 00:12 +, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
What about numa=fake=1? I think that should force it to create a
single NUMA node.
Is there any advantage to this vs numa=noacpi? Do they effectively end
up doing the same thing?
IanC: it looks like passing a node id of -1 is the
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 00:27 +, Vincent Caron wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 16:12 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 12/02/2010 03:47 PM, Vincent Caron wrote:
It just happens that your kernel above (2.6.32-27+numa1) boots fine
under hypervisor _when_ passed 'numa=noacpi'. Yeah !
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 08:52 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 00:12 +, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
What about numa=fake=1? I think that should force it to create a
single NUMA node.
Is there any advantage to this vs numa=noacpi? Do they effectively end
up doing the same
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 08:52 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
IanC: it looks like passing a node id of -1 is the correct way to
say I don't care.
I thought so too but convinced myself from staring at the code that it
wouldn't work in this case -- I'll double check before I resubmit.
I was
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 08:51 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 23:47 +, Vincent Caron wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:18 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:12 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:52 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On
On 12/02/2010 03:47 PM, Vincent Caron wrote:
It just happens that your kernel above (2.6.32-27+numa1) boots fine
under hypervisor _when_ passed 'numa=noacpi'. Yeah !
I then tried again with Debian Squeeze's latest 2.6.32-28, which
crashes as -27 under hypervisor (and changelog show no xen
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 10:24 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 11/23/2010 03:51 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
I'm not sure but looking at the complete bootlog it looks as if the
system may only have node==1 i.e. no 0 node which could plausibly lead
to this sort of issue:
[
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 13:51 +0100, Vincent Caron wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 10:24 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 11/23/2010 03:51 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
I'm not sure but looking at the complete bootlog it looks as if the
system may only have node==1 i.e. no 0 node which could
On 11/23/2010 03:51 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
I'm not sure but looking at the complete bootlog it looks as if the
system may only have node==1 i.e. no 0 node which could plausibly lead
to this sort of issue:
[0.00] Bootmem setup node 1 -4000
[
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 11:51 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
Perhaps we should be passing numa_node_id() (e.g. current node)
instead of node 0?
I've just kicked off a build of the 2.6.32-27 Debian kernel with the
following additional patch, I will hopefully post the binaries tomorrow.
If you
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:52 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 11:51 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
Perhaps we should be passing numa_node_id() (e.g. current node)
instead of node 0?
I've just kicked off a build of the 2.6.32-27 Debian kernel with the
following additional
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:12 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:52 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 11:51 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
Perhaps we should be passing numa_node_id() (e.g. current node)
instead of node 0?
I've just kicked off a build
13 matches
Mail list logo
