![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:04:01PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 11:20 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > > > > Maybe someone with access to ia64 NUMA boxen can check if the NODE(0) > > > solution works (and does not break anything) on ia64? Chrisoph, can you help? > > > > Umm... SGI does not use the swiotlb and we do not have these issues. HP > > does use the swiotlb on IA64. CCing John and Alex. > ... > > @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ > > /* > > * Get IO TLB memory from the low pages > > */ > > - io_tlb_start = alloc_bootmem_low_pages(io_tlb_nslabs * > > + io_tlb_start = alloc_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(0), io_tlb_nslabs * > > HP ia64 boxes typically use a hardware I/O TLB, so this is not the > normal case. However, the sx1000 boxes are exactly an example that will > break because of this assumption about memory layout. These boxes can > be configured to have various ratios of node local memory and > interleaved memory. Node local memory starts well above 4GB. > Interleaved memory is zero-based, and described in it's own proximity > domain. It therefore looks like a memory-only node. I believe the > above code change would cause us to allocate memory from the node local > range, way too high in the address space for bounce buffers. This memory only node has a node id? Then how about a patch which iterates over nodes in swiotlb.c, trying to allocate DMA'ble memory from node 0 and above until it gets proper memory for swiotlb? Would that be accepatble? I can quickly make a patch for that if it is acceptable.. Thanks, Kiran - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-10-17 21:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||