On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 08:51 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 23:47 +0000, Vincent Caron wrote:
> > 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 ?
>
> Yes and in fact I think the actual fix is simply to have Xen fake out
> the behaviour of numa=noacpi as below. I'll send this plus the other fix
> out after I've given it a bit of proper testing.
OK, I'll follow the patch until it makes it to Squeeze's kernel.
Thanks a lot for your help and fix !
Now going to stress some Xen 4.0 domains...
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home