On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:18 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:12 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:52 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 11:51 +0000, 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.
> >
> > Build was quicker than I thought... Vincent, Cris if you get a chance
> > please can you test the kernel from:
> > http://xenbits.xen.org/people/ianc/2.6.32-27+numa1/
>
> Also, please can you try adding "numa=noacpi" to your kernel command
> line when running with the standard Debian kernel (not the one above).
>
> Thanks!
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 or
numa-related thingies). Then I added 'numa=noacpi', and it boots fine
too. I got my 8 cores, networking, etc.
Enclosed is the dmesg for the latter, Debian, kernel.
Is the 'numa=noacpi' a "production acceptable" workaround ?
dell-r410-debian-2.6.32-28-numa-noacpi.txt
Description: Text document
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home