On 12/02/2010 03:47 PM, Vincent Caron wrote:
> 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 ?
What about "numa=fake=1"? I think that should force it to create a
single NUMA node.
IanC: it looks like passing a node id of "-1" is the correct way to say
"I don't care".
J
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
