Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 16 Sep 2001 11:24:14 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: 0-order allocation failed in 2.4.10-pre8 |
| |
On Sun, Sep 16 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On September 16, 2001 10:03 am, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 16 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > Use the > > > > > > > > > *.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/axboe/patches/2.4.9/block-highmem-all > > > > > > > > patch and you can use highmem without having to worry about failed > > > > 0-order bounce pages allocations. > > > > > > Right, by using 64 bit DMA instead of bounce buffers. But aren't there > cases > > > where the 64 bit capable hardware isn't there but somebody still wants to > use > > > highmem? > > > > Yes of course. The common case is not 64-bit dma here though, it's just > > being able to DMA to highmem pages (just full 32-bit dma instead of low > > memory dma). And that should cover most systems out there. > > Right, but that does not mean we can forget about bounce buffers, does it. > Most users will probably be able to use full 32-bit dma and users with more > than 4 GB of memory really should go to the effort of making sure their > hardware supports 64 bit dma. But there will still be a few people who have > to use bounce buffers.
Of course. My point was merely what with the block-highmem patch, most users will never need bounce -> it would therefore solve the posters issue.
> I'm just confirming that we really do have to push on and get bounce buffers > working reliably, even if most people will be able to use your far nicer > alternative.
Agreed. It will be much less important, but there will still be a need for it.
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
|  |