* why do we still need bootmem allocator? @ 2018-06-25 14:07 Michal Hocko 2018-06-25 16:09 ` Rob Herring 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Michal Hocko @ 2018-06-25 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-mm; +Cc: Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, linux-arch, LKML Hi, I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others cannot or this is just a matter of work? Btw. what really needs to be done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done in that regards? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? 2018-06-25 14:07 why do we still need bootmem allocator? Michal Hocko @ 2018-06-25 16:09 ` Rob Herring 2018-06-25 18:03 ` Michal Hocko ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Rob Herring @ 2018-06-25 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mhocko Cc: linux-mm, hannes, Andrew Morton, linux-arch, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > Hi, > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > cannot or this is just a matter of work? Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with some DT changes. > Btw. what really needs to be > done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done > in that regards? No. The commits converting the arches are the only documentation. It's a bit more complicated for platforms that have NUMA support. Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? 2018-06-25 16:09 ` Rob Herring @ 2018-06-25 18:03 ` Michal Hocko 2018-06-27 10:11 ` Mike Rapoport 2018-06-27 11:26 ` Mike Rapoport 2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michal Hocko @ 2018-06-25 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring Cc: linux-mm, hannes, Andrew Morton, linux-arch, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon 25-06-18 10:09:41, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > some DT changes. I see > > Btw. what really needs to be > > done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done > > in that regards? > > No. The commits converting the arches are the only documentation. It's > a bit more complicated for platforms that have NUMA support. I do not see why should be NUMA a problem but I will have a look at your commits to see what you have done. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? 2018-06-25 16:09 ` Rob Herring 2018-06-25 18:03 ` Michal Hocko @ 2018-06-27 10:11 ` Mike Rapoport 2018-06-27 10:40 ` Michal Hocko 2018-06-27 13:58 ` Rob Herring 2018-06-27 11:26 ` Mike Rapoport 2 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Mike Rapoport @ 2018-06-27 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, hannes, Andrew Morton, linux-arch, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > some DT changes. I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. That leaves m68k and ia64 > > Btw. what really needs to be > > done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done > > in that regards? > > No. The commits converting the arches are the only documentation. It's > a bit more complicated for platforms that have NUMA support. > > Rob > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? 2018-06-27 10:11 ` Mike Rapoport @ 2018-06-27 10:40 ` Michal Hocko 2018-06-27 13:58 ` Rob Herring 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michal Hocko @ 2018-06-27 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Rob Herring, linux-mm, hannes, Andrew Morton, linux-arch, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed 27-06-18 13:11:44, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > some DT changes. > > I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. Cool! > That leaves m68k and ia64 I will not get to those anytime soon (say a week or two) but I have that close on top of my todo list. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? 2018-06-27 10:11 ` Mike Rapoport @ 2018-06-27 13:58 ` Rob Herring 2018-06-27 13:58 ` Rob Herring 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Rob Herring @ 2018-06-27 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rppt Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > some DT changes. > > I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. > That leaves m68k and ia64 And c6x, hexagon, mips, nios2, unicore32. Those are all the platforms which don't select NO_BOOTMEM. Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? @ 2018-06-27 13:58 ` Rob Herring 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Rob Herring @ 2018-06-27 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rppt Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > some DT changes. > > I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. > That leaves m68k and ia64 And c6x, hexagon, mips, nios2, unicore32. Those are all the platforms which don't select NO_BOOTMEM. Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? 2018-06-27 13:58 ` Rob Herring @ 2018-06-27 15:58 ` Mike Rapoport -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Mike Rapoport @ 2018-06-27 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > > > > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > > some DT changes. > > > > I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. > > That leaves m68k and ia64 > > And c6x, hexagon, mips, nios2, unicore32. Those are all the platforms > which don't select NO_BOOTMEM. Yeah, you are right. I've somehow excluded those that HAVE_MEMBLOCK... > Rob > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? @ 2018-06-27 15:58 ` Mike Rapoport 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Mike Rapoport @ 2018-06-27 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > > > > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > > some DT changes. > > > > I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. > > That leaves m68k and ia64 > > And c6x, hexagon, mips, nios2, unicore32. Those are all the platforms > which don't select NO_BOOTMEM. Yeah, you are right. I've somehow excluded those that HAVE_MEMBLOCK... > Rob > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? 2018-06-25 16:09 ` Rob Herring 2018-06-25 18:03 ` Michal Hocko 2018-06-27 10:11 ` Mike Rapoport @ 2018-06-27 11:26 ` Mike Rapoport 2018-06-27 13:33 ` Rob Herring 2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Mike Rapoport @ 2018-06-27 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, hannes, Andrew Morton, linux-arch, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > some DT changes. I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it failed: [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 index:0x0 [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 ffffff7f 00000000 [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 0004df14 00000000 [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 00000044 00401fd1 [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 00000003 00000011 [ 0.000000] [ 0.000000] Call Trace: [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. > > Btw. what really needs to be > > done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done > > in that regards? > > No. The commits converting the arches are the only documentation. It's > a bit more complicated for platforms that have NUMA support. > > Rob > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? 2018-06-27 11:26 ` Mike Rapoport @ 2018-06-27 13:33 ` Rob Herring 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Rob Herring @ 2018-06-27 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rppt Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > some DT changes. > > I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it > failed: It seems my patch[1] is still not applied. The maintainer said he applied it. > [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 > [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 > index:0x0 > [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() > [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 > ffffff7f 00000000 > [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount > ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 > [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: > [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 > 0004df14 00000000 > [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 > 00000044 00401fd1 > [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 > 00000003 00000011 > [ 0.000000] > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] > [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] > [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint > > With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". > > I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has > starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. Perhaps there's another issue. Rob [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10290317/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? @ 2018-06-27 13:33 ` Rob Herring 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Rob Herring @ 2018-06-27 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rppt Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > some DT changes. > > I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it > failed: It seems my patch[1] is still not applied. The maintainer said he applied it. > [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 > [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 > index:0x0 > [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() > [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 > ffffff7f 00000000 > [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount > ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 > [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: > [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 > 0004df14 00000000 > [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 > 00000044 00401fd1 > [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 > 00000003 00000011 > [ 0.000000] > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] > [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] > [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint > > With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". > > I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has > starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. Perhaps there's another issue. Rob [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10290317/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? 2018-06-27 13:33 ` Rob Herring @ 2018-06-27 16:02 ` Mike Rapoport -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Mike Rapoport @ 2018-06-27 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > > > > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > > some DT changes. > > > > I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it > > failed: > > It seems my patch[1] is still not applied. The maintainer said he applied it. I've applied it manually. Without it unflatten_and_copy_device_tree() fails to allocate memory. It indeed can be fixed with moving bootmem_init() before, as you've noted in the commit message. I'll try to dig deeper into it. > > [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 > > [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 > > index:0x0 > > [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() > > [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 > > ffffff7f 00000000 > > [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount > > ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- > > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 > > [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: > > [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 > > 0004df14 00000000 > > [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 > > 00000044 00401fd1 > > [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 > > 00000003 00000011 > > [ 0.000000] > > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > > [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] > > [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] > > [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint > > > > With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". > > > > I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has > > starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. > > Perhaps there's another issue. > > Rob > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10290317/ > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? @ 2018-06-27 16:02 ` Mike Rapoport 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Mike Rapoport @ 2018-06-27 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > > > > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > > some DT changes. > > > > I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it > > failed: > > It seems my patch[1] is still not applied. The maintainer said he applied it. I've applied it manually. Without it unflatten_and_copy_device_tree() fails to allocate memory. It indeed can be fixed with moving bootmem_init() before, as you've noted in the commit message. I'll try to dig deeper into it. > > [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 > > [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 > > index:0x0 > > [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() > > [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 > > ffffff7f 00000000 > > [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount > > ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- > > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 > > [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: > > [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 > > 0004df14 00000000 > > [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 > > 00000044 00401fd1 > > [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 > > 00000003 00000011 > > [ 0.000000] > > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > > [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] > > [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] > > [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint > > > > With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". > > > > I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has > > starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. > > Perhaps there's another issue. > > Rob > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10290317/ > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?) 2018-06-27 16:02 ` Mike Rapoport @ 2018-07-01 12:22 ` Mike Rapoport -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Mike Rapoport @ 2018-07-01 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel, Yoshinori Sato (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz/) On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it > > > failed: > > > > It seems my patch[1] is still not applied. The maintainer said he applied it. > > I've applied it manually. Without it unflatten_and_copy_device_tree() fails > to allocate memory. It indeed can be fixed with moving bootmem_init() > before, as you've noted in the commit message. > > I'll try to dig deeper into it. > > > > [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 > > > [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 > > > index:0x0 > > > [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() > > > [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 > > > ffffff7f 00000000 > > > [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount > > > ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- > > > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 > > > [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: > > > [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 > > > 0004df14 00000000 > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 > > > 00000044 00401fd1 > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 > > > 00000003 00000011 > > > [ 0.000000] > > > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > > > [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] > > > [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] > > > [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint > > > > > > With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". > > > > > > I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has > > > starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. > > > > Perhaps there's another issue. In my setup this is caused by __ffs() clobbering start pfn in nobootmem.c::__free_pages_memory(). If I change the __ffs() implementation from the inline assembly to generic bitops everything is fine. I'm using gcc 8.1.0 from [1] and gdb 8.1.0.20180625-git [1] http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ -- Sincerely yours, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?) @ 2018-07-01 12:22 ` Mike Rapoport 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Mike Rapoport @ 2018-07-01 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel, Yoshinori Sato (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz/) On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it > > > failed: > > > > It seems my patch[1] is still not applied. The maintainer said he applied it. > > I've applied it manually. Without it unflatten_and_copy_device_tree() fails > to allocate memory. It indeed can be fixed with moving bootmem_init() > before, as you've noted in the commit message. > > I'll try to dig deeper into it. > > > > [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 > > > [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 > > > index:0x0 > > > [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() > > > [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 > > > ffffff7f 00000000 > > > [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount > > > ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- > > > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 > > > [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: > > > [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 > > > 0004df14 00000000 > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 > > > 00000044 00401fd1 > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 > > > 00000003 00000011 > > > [ 0.000000] > > > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > > > [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] > > > [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] > > > [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint > > > > > > With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". > > > > > > I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has > > > starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. > > > > Perhaps there's another issue. In my setup this is caused by __ffs() clobbering start pfn in nobootmem.c::__free_pages_memory(). If I change the __ffs() implementation from the inline assembly to generic bitops everything is fine. I'm using gcc 8.1.0 from [1] and gdb 8.1.0.20180625-git [1] http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ -- Sincerely yours, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?) 2018-07-01 12:22 ` Mike Rapoport @ 2018-07-02 6:09 ` Yoshinori Sato -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Yoshinori Sato @ 2018-07-02 6:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Rob Herring, mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz/) > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it > > > > failed: > > > > > > It seems my patch[1] is still not applied. The maintainer said he applied it. > > > > I've applied it manually. Without it unflatten_and_copy_device_tree() fails > > to allocate memory. It indeed can be fixed with moving bootmem_init() > > before, as you've noted in the commit message. > > > > I'll try to dig deeper into it. > > > > > > [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 > > > > [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 > > > > index:0x0 > > > > [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() > > > > [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 > > > > ffffff7f 00000000 > > > > [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount > > > > ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- > > > > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 > > > > [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: > > > > [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 > > > > 0004df14 00000000 > > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 > > > > 00000044 00401fd1 > > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 > > > > 00000003 00000011 > > > > [ 0.000000] > > > > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > > > > [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] > > > > [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] > > > > [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint > > > > > > > > With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". > > > > > > > > I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has > > > > starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. > > > > > > Perhaps there's another issue. > > In my setup this is caused by __ffs() clobbering start pfn in > nobootmem.c::__free_pages_memory(). > > If I change the __ffs() implementation from the inline assembly to generic > bitops everything is fine. OK. Current bitops.h implementations have some dependencies on gcc's behavior. I think that it is necessary to modify it generically so that it can correspond to the new gcc. Please wait until it gets fixed. > I'm using gcc 8.1.0 from [1] and gdb 8.1.0.20180625-git > > [1] http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ > > > -- > Sincerely yours, > -- Yosinori Sato ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?) @ 2018-07-02 6:09 ` Yoshinori Sato 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Yoshinori Sato @ 2018-07-02 6:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Rob Herring, mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz/) > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it > > > > failed: > > > > > > It seems my patch[1] is still not applied. The maintainer said he applied it. > > > > I've applied it manually. Without it unflatten_and_copy_device_tree() fails > > to allocate memory. It indeed can be fixed with moving bootmem_init() > > before, as you've noted in the commit message. > > > > I'll try to dig deeper into it. > > > > > > [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 > > > > [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 > > > > index:0x0 > > > > [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() > > > > [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 > > > > ffffff7f 00000000 > > > > [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount > > > > ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- > > > > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 > > > > [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: > > > > [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 > > > > 0004df14 00000000 > > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 > > > > 00000044 00401fd1 > > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 > > > > 00000003 00000011 > > > > [ 0.000000] > > > > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > > > > [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] > > > > [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] > > > > [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint > > > > > > > > With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". > > > > > > > > I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has > > > > starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. > > > > > > Perhaps there's another issue. > > In my setup this is caused by __ffs() clobbering start pfn in > nobootmem.c::__free_pages_memory(). > > If I change the __ffs() implementation from the inline assembly to generic > bitops everything is fine. OK. Current bitops.h implementations have some dependencies on gcc's behavior. I think that it is necessary to modify it generically so that it can correspond to the new gcc. Please wait until it gets fixed. > I'm using gcc 8.1.0 from [1] and gdb 8.1.0.20180625-git > > [1] http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ > > > -- > Sincerely yours, > -- Yosinori Sato ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?) 2018-07-01 12:22 ` Mike Rapoport @ 2018-07-12 14:40 ` Yoshinori Sato -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Yoshinori Sato @ 2018-07-12 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Rob Herring, mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz/) > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it > > > > failed: > > > > > > It seems my patch[1] is still not applied. The maintainer said he applied it. > > > > I've applied it manually. Without it unflatten_and_copy_device_tree() fails > > to allocate memory. It indeed can be fixed with moving bootmem_init() > > before, as you've noted in the commit message. > > > > I'll try to dig deeper into it. > > > > > > [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 > > > > [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 > > > > index:0x0 > > > > [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() > > > > [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 > > > > ffffff7f 00000000 > > > > [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount > > > > ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- > > > > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 > > > > [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: > > > > [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 > > > > 0004df14 00000000 > > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 > > > > 00000044 00401fd1 > > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 > > > > 00000003 00000011 > > > > [ 0.000000] > > > > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > > > > [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] > > > > [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] > > > > [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint > > > > > > > > With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". > > > > > > > > I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has > > > > starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. > > > > > > Perhaps there's another issue. > > In my setup this is caused by __ffs() clobbering start pfn in > nobootmem.c::__free_pages_memory(). > > If I change the __ffs() implementation from the inline assembly to generic > bitops everything is fine. > > I'm using gcc 8.1.0 from [1] and gdb 8.1.0.20180625-git OK. fixed. The declaration of the destroyed register was insufficient. It works fine with NO_BOOTMEM. > [1] http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ > > > -- > Sincerely yours, > -- Yosinori Sato ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?) @ 2018-07-12 14:40 ` Yoshinori Sato 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Yoshinori Sato @ 2018-07-12 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Rob Herring, mhocko, linux-mm, Johannes Weiner, Andrew Morton, open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES, linux-kernel On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz/) > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I've tried running the current upstream on h8300 gdb simulator and it > > > > failed: > > > > > > It seems my patch[1] is still not applied. The maintainer said he applied it. > > > > I've applied it manually. Without it unflatten_and_copy_device_tree() fails > > to allocate memory. It indeed can be fixed with moving bootmem_init() > > before, as you've noted in the commit message. > > > > I'll try to dig deeper into it. > > > > > > [ 0.000000] BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:00004 > > > > [ 0.000000] page:007ed080 count:0 mapcount:-128 mapping:00000000 > > > > index:0x0 > > > > [ 0.000000] flags: 0x0() > > > > [ 0.000000] raw: 00000000 0040bdac 0040bdac 00000000 00000000 00000002 > > > > ffffff7f 00000000 > > > > [ 0.000000] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount > > > > ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit--- > > > > [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.18.0-rc2+ #50 > > > > [ 0.000000] Stack from 00401f2c: > > > > [ 0.000000] 00401f2c 001116cb 007ed080 00401f40 000e20e6 00401f54 > > > > 0004df14 00000000 > > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed080 007ed000 00401f5c 0004df8c 00401f90 0004e982 > > > > 00000044 00401fd1 > > > > [ 0.000000] 007ed000 007ed000 00000000 00000004 00000008 00000000 > > > > 00000003 00000011 > > > > [ 0.000000] > > > > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > > > > [ 0.000000] [<000e20e6>] [<0004df14>] [<0004df8c>] [<0004e982>] > > > > [ 0.000000] [<00051a28>] [<00001000>] [<00000100>] > > > > [ 0.000000] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint > > > > > > > > With v4.13 I was able to get to "no valid init found". > > > > > > > > I had a quick look at h8300 memory initialization and it seems it has > > > > starting pfn set to 0 while fdt defines memory start at 4M. > > > > > > Perhaps there's another issue. > > In my setup this is caused by __ffs() clobbering start pfn in > nobootmem.c::__free_pages_memory(). > > If I change the __ffs() implementation from the inline assembly to generic > bitops everything is fine. > > I'm using gcc 8.1.0 from [1] and gdb 8.1.0.20180625-git OK. fixed. The declaration of the destroyed register was insufficient. It works fine with NO_BOOTMEM. > [1] http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ > > > -- > Sincerely yours, > -- Yosinori Sato ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-07-12 14:40 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-06-25 14:07 why do we still need bootmem allocator? Michal Hocko 2018-06-25 16:09 ` Rob Herring 2018-06-25 18:03 ` Michal Hocko 2018-06-27 10:11 ` Mike Rapoport 2018-06-27 10:40 ` Michal Hocko 2018-06-27 13:58 ` Rob Herring 2018-06-27 13:58 ` Rob Herring 2018-06-27 15:58 ` Mike Rapoport 2018-06-27 15:58 ` Mike Rapoport 2018-06-27 11:26 ` Mike Rapoport 2018-06-27 13:33 ` Rob Herring 2018-06-27 13:33 ` Rob Herring 2018-06-27 16:02 ` Mike Rapoport 2018-06-27 16:02 ` Mike Rapoport 2018-07-01 12:22 ` h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?) Mike Rapoport 2018-07-01 12:22 ` Mike Rapoport 2018-07-02 6:09 ` Yoshinori Sato 2018-07-02 6:09 ` Yoshinori Sato 2018-07-12 14:40 ` Yoshinori Sato 2018-07-12 14:40 ` Yoshinori Sato
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.