Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.
First Last Prev Next    This bug is not in your last search results.
Bug 466341 - RT kernel fails to boot on Intel Canelands processors (16 and 24 cores)
RT kernel fails to boot on Intel Canelands processors (16 and 24 cores)
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Red Hat Enterprise MRG
Classification: Red Hat
Component: realtime-kernel (Show other bugs)
1.0
x86_64 Linux
high Severity medium
: 1.1
: ---
Assigned To: Steven Rostedt
:
: 443902 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2008-10-09 15:47 EDT by Clark Williams
Modified: 2009-01-22 05:44 EST (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-22 05:44:24 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2009:0009 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Important: kernel security and bug fix update 2009-01-22 05:43:54 EST

  None (edit)
Comment 4 David Sommerseth 2008-11-20 05:52:04 EST 
Tested on nec-em8.rhts.bos.redhat.com with 16GB RAM and 16 CPUs (4x4)

Booting stock RHEL5.2 kernel (2.6.18-92.el5) works, but no bootmem setup memory mapping displayed.

Booting mrg-rt 2.6.24.7-81.el5rt fails, as it hangs after udev init.

Booting mrg-rt 2.6.24.7-93.el5rt boots with this memory map:

Bootmem setup node 0 0000000000000000-0000000430000000
 [ffffe20000000000-ffffe200001fffff] PMD ->ffff810001200000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000200000-ffffe200003fffff] PMD ->ffff810001400000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000400000-ffffe200005fffff] PMD ->ffff810001600000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000600000-ffffe200007fffff] PMD ->ffff810001800000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000800000-ffffe200009fffff] PMD ->ffff810001a00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000a00000-ffffe20000bfffff] PMD ->ffff810001c00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000c00000-ffffe20000dfffff] PMD ->ffff810001e00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000e00000-ffffe20000ffffff] PMD ->ffff810002000000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001000000-ffffe200011fffff] PMD ->ffff810002200000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001200000-ffffe200013fffff] PMD ->ffff810002400000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001400000-ffffe200015fffff] PMD ->ffff810002600000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001600000-ffffe200017fffff] PMD ->ffff810002800000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001800000-ffffe200019fffff] PMD ->ffff810002a00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001a00000-ffffe20001bfffff] PMD ->ffff810002c00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001c00000-ffffe20001dfffff] PMD ->ffff810002e00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001e00000-ffffe20001ffffff] PMD ->ffff810003000000 on node 0
 [ffffe20002000000-ffffe200021fffff] PMD ->ffff810003200000 on node 0
 [ffffe20002200000-ffffe200023fffff] PMD ->ffff810003400000 on node 0
 [ffffe20002400000-ffffe200025fffff] PMD ->ffff810003600000 on node 0
 [ffffe20002600000-ffffe200027fffff] PMD ->ffff810003800000 on node 0
 [ffffe20002800000-ffffe200029fffff] PMD ->ffff810003a00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20002a00000-ffffe20002bfffff] PMD ->ffff810003c00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20002c00000-ffffe20002dfffff] PMD ->ffff810003e00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20002e00000-ffffe20002ffffff] PMD ->ffff810004000000 on node 0
 [ffffe20003000000-ffffe200031fffff] PMD ->ffff810004200000 on node 0
 [ffffe20003200000-ffffe200033fffff] PMD ->ffff810004400000 on node 0
 [ffffe20003400000-ffffe200035fffff] PMD ->ffff810004600000 on node 0
 [ffffe20003600000-ffffe200037fffff] PMD ->ffff810004800000 on node 0

As this memory map indicates results as expected from the patch, this bug is moved to VERIFIED.
Comment 5 David Sommerseth 2008-11-20 12:45:42 EST 
Just as a reference.  Managed to check this on a -81 kernel on another box ... memory map:

Bootmem setup node 0 0000000000000000-0000000430000000
 [ffffe20000000000-ffffe200001fffff] PMD ->ffff810001200000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000200000-ffffe200003fffff] PMD ->ffff810001400000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000400000-ffffe200005fffff] PMD ->ffff810001800000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000600000-ffffe200007fffff] PMD ->ffff810001c00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000800000-ffffe200009fffff] PMD ->ffff810001e00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000a00000-ffffe20000bfffff] PMD ->ffff810002200000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000c00000-ffffe20000dfffff] PMD ->ffff810002600000 on node 0
 [ffffe20000e00000-ffffe20000ffffff] PMD ->ffff810002800000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001000000-ffffe200011fffff] PMD ->ffff810002c00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001200000-ffffe200013fffff] PMD ->ffff810003000000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001400000-ffffe200015fffff] PMD ->ffff810003200000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001600000-ffffe200017fffff] PMD ->ffff810003600000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001800000-ffffe200019fffff] PMD ->ffff810003a00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001a00000-ffffe20001bfffff] PMD ->ffff810003c00000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001c00000-ffffe20001dfffff] PMD ->ffff810004000000 on node 0
 [ffffe20001e00000-ffffe20001ffffff] PMD ->ffff810004400000 on node 0

This has the 2MB gaps as described in patch.  Patch definitely is implemented in -93 kernel.
Comment 6 Luis Claudio R. Goncalves 2008-12-16 10:32:13 EST 
*** Bug 443902 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2009-01-22 05:44:24 EST 
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-0009.html
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
First Last Prev Next    This bug is not in your last search results.