Re: [Bug #10872] x86_64 boot hang when CONFIG_NUMA=n

[Yinghai Lu]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:07:03 -0700 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:24:16 -0700 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:39:17 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:32:18 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > > This still happens with 2.6.26-rc9.  Using CONFIG_NUMA=y boots OK.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Ok, then it wasn't the nr_zones thing.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Since it seems to be repeatable for you, can you bisect it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > one guess would be:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > | commit e8ee6f0ae5cd860e8e6c02807edfa3c1fa01bcb5
>> >> >> > | Author: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > | Date:   Sun Apr 13 01:41:58 2008 -0700
>> >> >> > |
>> >> >> > |     x86: work around io allocation overlap of HT links
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > but ... since CONFIG_NUMA makes it work, i'm not sure about that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Randy, could you post the full CONFIG_NUMA bootlog as well, does it show
>> >> >> > any difference in resource allocations?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Good and bad boot logs are attached.  There are several differences, but I don't
>> >> >> see any that are significant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've started bisecting with:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> $ git bisect start
>> >> >> $ git bisect bad v2.6.26-rc1
>> >> >> $ git bisect good v2.6.25
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's only about 1.29M lines of changes.
>> >> >
>> >> > git bisect and normal rebooting did not find a problem.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll repeat this using kexec to boot the new kernel and see if that
>> >> > locates any issues... since I normally use kexec to load/test new kernels
>> >> > and that was how the failure occurred (occurs).
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> same NON-NUMA kernel kexec NON-NUMA kernel?
>> >>
>> >> or other kernel kexex it?
>> >
>> > Ah.  Good question.  I hadn't noticed that.
>> > NUMA kernel kexec-ing a non-NUMA kernel now fails, but it worked in 2.6.25.
>> >
>>
>> can you resend out that two config?
>
> The host/first kernel that loads the second/failing kernel uses
> config-2625-work.  The second kernel that hangs during boot uses
> kconfig.numa.bad .  (both attached)
>
too bad, still can not dupicate here with your sequence.

YH

Attachment: config_2.6.25_numa
Description: Binary data

Attachment: config_tip_no_numa
Description: Binary data