On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Sachin Sant <sachinp@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Xiaotian Feng wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Sachin Sant <sachinp@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >>> WARNING: at arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c:111 __ioremap_caller+0x169/0x2f1()
> >>> Hardware name: BladeCenter LS21 -[79716AA]-
> >>> Modules linked in:
> >>> Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.33-git6-autotest #1
> >>> Call Trace:
> >>> [<ffffffff81047cff>] ? __ioremap_caller+0x169/0x2f1
> >>> [<ffffffff81063b7d>] warn_slowpath_common+0x77/0xa4
> >>> [<ffffffff81063bb9>] warn_slowpath_null+0xf/0x11
> >>> [<ffffffff81047cff>] __ioremap_caller+0x169/0x2f1
> >>> [<ffffffff813747a3>] ? acpi_os_map_memory+0x12/0x1b
> >>> [<ffffffff81047f10>] ioremap_nocache+0x12/0x14
> >>> [<ffffffff813747a3>] acpi_os_map_memory+0x12/0x1b
> >>> [<ffffffff81282fa0>] acpi_tb_verify_table+0x29/0x5b
> >>> [<ffffffff812827f0>] acpi_load_tables+0x39/0x15a
> >>> [<ffffffff8191c8f8>] acpi_early_init+0x60/0xf5
> >>> [<ffffffff818f2cad>] start_kernel+0x397/0x3a7
> >>> [<ffffffff818f2295>] x86_64_start_reservations+0xa5/0xa9
> >>> [<ffffffff818f237a>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xe1/0xe8
> >>> ---[ end trace 4eaa2a86a8e2da22 ]---
> >>> ioremap reserve_memtype failed -22

The return code is -EINVAL, so it failed in the is_ram check, which is
not too surprising

quoted text
> BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
>  BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009c000 (usable)
>  BIOS-e820: 000000000009c000 - 00000000000a0000 (reserved)
>  BIOS-e820: 00000000000e0000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
>  BIOS-e820: 0000000000100000 - 00000000cffa3900 (usable)
>  BIOS-e820: 00000000cffa3900 - 00000000cffa7400 (ACPI data)

The ACPI data is not starting on a page boundary and neither does the
usable RAM area end on a page boundary. Very useful !

quoted text
> ACPI: DSDT 00000000cffa3900 036CE (v01 IBM    SERLEWIS 00001000 INTL 20060912)

ACPI is trying to map DSDT at cffa3900, which results in a check
vs. cffa3000 which is the relevant page boundary. The generic is_ram
check correctly identifies that as RAM because it's in the usable
resource area. The old e820 based is_ram check does not take
overlapping resource areas into account. That's why it works.

We probably need to sanitize the E820 map befor throwing it at the
resource manager.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/