Re: [PATCH 5/6] Have ia64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes

On Sun, 14 May 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:

Mel Gorman <[email protected]> wrote:

Size zones and holes in an architecture independent manner for ia64.

This one makes my ia64 die very early in boot.   The trace is pretty useless.

config at http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/config-ia64

An indirect fix for this has been set out with a patchset with the subject "[PATCH 0/2] Fixes for node alignment and flatmem assumptions" . For arch-independent-zone-sizing, the issue was that FLATMEM assumes that NODE_DATA(0)->node_start_pfn == 0. This is not the case with arch-independent-zone-sizing and IA64. With arch-independent-zone-sizing, a nodes node_start_pfn will be at the first valid PFN.

<log snipped>

Note the misaligned pfns.

You will still get the message about misaligned PFNs on IA64. This is because the lowest zone starts at the lowest available PFN which may not be 0 or any other aligned number. It shouldn't make a different - or at least I couldn't cause any problems.

--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 5/6] Have ia64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
    • From: Andy Whitcroft <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/6] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V6
    • From: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 5/6] Have ia64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
    • From: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 5/6] Have ia64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/9] namespaces: Introduction
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] kprobes: bad manipulation of 2 byte opcode on x86_64
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Have ia64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Have ia64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]