On Mon 11-02-19 14:49:09, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Thu 24-01-19 11:10:50, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On 1/24/19 6:17 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > and nr_cpus set to 4. The underlying reason is tha the device is bound
> > > > to node 2 which doesn't have any memory
* Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 24-01-19 11:10:50, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 1/24/19 6:17 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > and nr_cpus set to 4. The underlying reason is tha the device is bound
> > > to node 2 which doesn't have any memory and init_cpu_to_node only
> > > initializes memory-less
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:40:23AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 24-01-19 19:51:44, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:17:27PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > a friendly ping for this. Does anybody see any problem with this
> > > approach?
> >
> > FWIW, it looks fine to
On Thu 24-01-19 11:10:50, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/24/19 6:17 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > and nr_cpus set to 4. The underlying reason is tha the device is bound
> > to node 2 which doesn't have any memory and init_cpu_to_node only
> > initializes memory-less nodes for possible cpus which nr_cpus
On Thu 24-01-19 19:51:44, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:17:27PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > a friendly ping for this. Does anybody see any problem with this
> > approach?
>
> FWIW, it looks fine to me.
>
> It'd just be nice to have a few more words in the changelog about
On 1/24/19 6:17 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> and nr_cpus set to 4. The underlying reason is tha the device is bound
> to node 2 which doesn't have any memory and init_cpu_to_node only
> initializes memory-less nodes for possible cpus which nr_cpus restrics.
> This in turn means that proper zonelists
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:17:27PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> a friendly ping for this. Does anybody see any problem with this
> approach?
FWIW, it looks fine to me.
It'd just be nice to have a few more words in the changelog about *how* the
x86 init was reworked ;-)
> On Mon 14-01-19
a friendly ping for this. Does anybody see any problem with this
approach?
On Mon 14-01-19 09:24:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Pingfan Liu has reported the following splat
> [5.772742] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 2088
> [5.773618] PGD 0
[...]
> >
> > I would appreciate a help with those architectures because I couldn't
> > really grasp how the memoryless nodes are really initialized there. E.g.
> > ppc only seem to call setup_node_data for online nodes but I couldn't
> > find any special treatment for nodes without any memory.
>
On Mon 14-01-19 21:26:39, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
>
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > Pingfan Liu has reported the following splat
> > [5.772742] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at
> > 2088
> > [5.773618] PGD 0 P4D 0
> > [5.773618] Oops:
Michal Hocko writes:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Pingfan Liu has reported the following splat
> [5.772742] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 2088
> [5.773618] PGD 0 P4D 0
> [5.773618] Oops: [#1] SMP NOPTI
> [5.773618] CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not
From: Michal Hocko
Pingfan Liu has reported the following splat
[5.772742] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 2088
[5.773618] PGD 0 P4D 0
[5.773618] Oops: [#1] SMP NOPTI
[5.773618] CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.20.0-rc1+ #3
[
12 matches
Mail list logo
