|
Re: [discuss] Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken: msg#00114linux.ports.x86-64.general
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 04:04:00PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 14:53 -0700, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 03:28:27PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > So, it looks like we're iterating over the nodes, but > > > alloc_bootmem_node() isn't even guaranteed to try to get memory from the > > > low memory on that node. > > > > Thanks Alex. 2.6.14-rc4-mm1 already has the > > guarantee-dma-area-for-alloc_bootmem_low.patch by Yasunori-san. So it is > > safer to confirm results on latest 2.6.14 stock. > > Ok. I'll need to build a stock tree then. > > > Could it also be that Node 2 is offline when swiotlb is allocated? > > Nope. Note that Node2 is iterated in the for_each_online_node, my > printk is within the body of the loop. Also, the allocation it did get > is still from Node2. My understanding is that goal for > alloc_bootmem_node is MAX_DMA_ADDRESS. On ia64, that defaults to 4GB. Ahhh... and it is 16MB on x86_64. alloc_bootmem_node will never work here for ia64 then, However, alloc_bootmem_low_pages_node will work, but then it will dig into 16MB DMA area of x86_64.... arrrrgh... The first cleanup post 2.6.14 should be to seperate swiotlb for ia64 and x86_64 IMHO. |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [discuss] Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken: 00114, Alex Williamson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [discuss] Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken: 00114, Ravikiran G Thirumalai |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [discuss] Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb brokeni: 00114, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken: 00114, Muli Ben-Yehuda |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |