On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:57 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Mon 24-06-19 16:42:20, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > What about dropping the change of the online definition of your patch,
> > just do the following?
>
> I am sorry but I am unlikely to find some more time to look into this.
On Mon 24-06-19 16:42:20, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> What about dropping the change of the online definition of your patch,
> just do the following?
I am sorry but I am unlikely to find some more time to look into this. I
am willing to help reviewing but I will not find enough time to
Hi Michal,
What about dropping the change of the online definition of your patch,
just do the following?
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
index e6dad60..9c087c3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
@@ -749,13 +749,12 @@ static void __init
On Fri 21-06-19 09:17:58, Qian Cai wrote:
> Sigh...
>
> I don't see any benefit to keep the broken commit,
>
> "x86, numa: always initialize all possible nodes"
>
> for so long in linux-next that just prevent x86 NUMA machines with any memory-
> less node from booting.
>
> Andrew, maybe it is
Sigh...
I don't see any benefit to keep the broken commit,
"x86, numa: always initialize all possible nodes"
for so long in linux-next that just prevent x86 NUMA machines with any memory-
less node from booting.
Andrew, maybe it is time to drop this patch until Michal found some time to fix
it
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 5:03 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Thu 30-05-19 20:55:32, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:20 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > [Sorry for a late reply]
> > >
> > > On Thu 23-05-19 11:58:45, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:16 PM
On Thu 30-05-19 20:55:32, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:20 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > [Sorry for a late reply]
> >
> > On Thu 23-05-19 11:58:45, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:16 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed 22-05-19 15:12:16, Pingfan Liu
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:21 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Thu 23-05-19 12:00:46, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> [...]
> > > Yes, but maybe it will pay great effort on it.
> > >
> > And as a first step, we can find a way to fix the bug reported by me
> > and the one reported by Barret
>
> Can we try
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:20 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> [Sorry for a late reply]
>
> On Thu 23-05-19 11:58:45, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:16 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 22-05-19 15:12:16, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> [...]
> > > > But in fact, we already have
On Thu 23-05-19 12:00:46, Pingfan Liu wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, but maybe it will pay great effort on it.
> >
> And as a first step, we can find a way to fix the bug reported by me
> and the one reported by Barret
Can we try http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190513140448.gj24...@dhcp22.suse.cz
for starter?
[Sorry for a late reply]
On Thu 23-05-19 11:58:45, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:16 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 22-05-19 15:12:16, Pingfan Liu wrote:
[...]
> > > But in fact, we already have for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) to
> > > cover this purpose.
> >
> > I do
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:58 AM Pingfan Liu wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:16 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 22-05-19 15:12:16, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:31 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon 13-05-19 11:20:46, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > > On Mon,
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:16 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Wed 22-05-19 15:12:16, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:31 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon 13-05-19 11:20:46, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:04 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Mon
On Wed 22-05-19 15:12:16, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:31 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 13-05-19 11:20:46, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:04 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 13-05-19 09:43:59, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2019-05-13 at
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:31 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Mon 13-05-19 11:20:46, Qian Cai wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:04 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 13-05-19 09:43:59, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 14:41 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Sun 12-05-19
On Mon 13-05-19 11:20:46, Qian Cai wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:04 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 13-05-19 09:43:59, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 14:41 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Sun 12-05-19 01:48:29, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > > The linux-next commit ("x86,
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:04 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 13-05-19 09:43:59, Qian Cai wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 14:41 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Sun 12-05-19 01:48:29, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > The linux-next commit ("x86, numa: always initialize all possible
> > > > nodes")
On Mon 13-05-19 09:43:59, Qian Cai wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 14:41 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sun 12-05-19 01:48:29, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > The linux-next commit ("x86, numa: always initialize all possible
> > > nodes") introduced a crash below during boot for systems with a
> > >
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 14:41 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 12-05-19 01:48:29, Qian Cai wrote:
> > The linux-next commit ("x86, numa: always initialize all possible
> > nodes") introduced a crash below during boot for systems with a
> > memory-less node. This is due to CPUs that get onlined
On Sun 12-05-19 01:48:29, Qian Cai wrote:
> The linux-next commit ("x86, numa: always initialize all possible
> nodes") introduced a crash below during boot for systems with a
> memory-less node. This is due to CPUs that get onlined during SMP boot,
> but that onlining triggers a page fault in
The linux-next commit ("x86, numa: always initialize all possible
nodes") introduced a crash below during boot for systems with a
memory-less node. This is due to CPUs that get onlined during SMP boot,
but that onlining triggers a page fault in bus_add_device() during
device registration:
21 matches
Mail list logo
