|
Re: [discuss] Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken: msg#00093linux.ports.x86-64.general
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:09:52PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Monday 17 October 2005 21:04, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > So the only thing that worried me (and made me ask whether there might be > > machines where it doesn't work) is if some machines might have their high > > memory (or no memory at all) on NODE(0). It does sound unlikely, but I > > simple don't know what kind of strange NUMA configs there are out there. > > It could happen in VirtualIron (they seem to interleave node 0 over many > nodes > to get equal use of lowmem in 32bit NUMA), but should not in x86-64.. > > > And I'm definitely only interested in machines that are out there, not > > some theoretical issues. > > According to Alex W. it will break their sx1000 IA64 boxen. sx1000 is probably already broken; Unless the last pgdat happens to be the memory only node with 0-4G? How about the fix I suggested which would iterate across all nodes until it found the right node for swiotlb? Thanks, Kiran |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [discuss] Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken: 00093, Arjan van de Ven |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken: 00093, Alex Williamson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [discuss] Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb brokeni: 00093, Arjan van de Ven |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [discuss] Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken: 00093, David Lang |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |