Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:55:13 -0700 | From | Gary Hade <> | Subject | Re: Regression with commit f9cde5f in 2.6.30-gitX |
| |
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:44:11AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:03:39 +0530 > Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 09:13 -0700, Gary Hade wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:27:48PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 17:19 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Larry, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Larry Finger wrote: > > > > > > For the record, the printout from the patch results in the > > > > > > following: > > > > > > > > > > > > PCI: Failed to allocate 0xd0000-0xd3fff from PCI mem for PCI > > > > > > Bus 0000:00 PCI: Failed to allocate 0xec000-0xeffff from PCI > > > > > > mem for PCI Bus 0000:00 due to _CRS returning more than 13 > > > > > > resource descriptors PCI: Failed to allocate 0xf0000-0xfffff > > > > > > from PCI mem for PCI Bus 0000:00 due to _CRS returning more > > > > > > than 13 resource descriptors PCI: Failed to allocate > > > > > > 0xc0000000-0xfebfffff from PCI mem for PCI Bus 0000:00 due to > > > > > > _CRS returning more than 13 resource descriptors > > > > > > > > > > can you please the patch below instead of the other one ? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > tglx > > > > > --- > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > > > > > index 16c3fda..39a0cce 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > > > > > @@ -99,7 +99,6 @@ setup_resource(struct acpi_resource > > > > > *acpi_res, void *data) "%d resource descriptors\n", (unsigned > > > > > long) res->start, (unsigned long) res->end, root->name, > > > > > info->name, max_root_bus_resources); > > > > > - info->res_num++; > > > > > return AE_OK; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > This fails and system does not boot, I already tested this patch > > > > 8 hours ago. > > > > > > I think the resource array needs to be larger. Can you try > > > the below patch? > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > --- linux-2.6.30-rc8/include/linux/pci.h.ORIG 2009-06-24 > > > 09:03:41.000000000 -0700 +++ > > > linux-2.6.30-rc8/include/linux/pci.h 2009-06-24 > > > 09:06:50.000000000 -0700 @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ static inline void > > > pci_add_saved_cap(str } > > > #ifndef PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES > > > -#define PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES 16 > > > +#define PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES 20 > > > #endif > > > > > > #define PCI_REGION_FLAG_MASK 0x0fU /* These bits of > > > resource flags tell us the PCI region flags */ > > > > > > Larry already suggested PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES to 24 in his patch > > (check first reply from him). > > > > Then what is the point of removing last 3 and then adding 3 or more > > resources, so patch f9cde5f lost its purpose, best case will be to > > revert f9cde5f as it also removed : > > > > if (info->res_num >= PCI_BUS_NUM_RESOURCES) > > return AE_OK; > > > > which is required in any case. > > Yeah, I missed that too... Gary how do you feel about that as the real > fix? Would it be safe to make this a fairly high value like 64? Or > should we try to do something more flexible...
Sorry I missed the 16->24 change and other good information in Larry's earlier message. There were 17 occurrences of the "PCI: transparent bridge..." message that Larry added which indicates that _CRS returned 17 resources. This is 4 more than the current 13 maximum which explains the problem. I believe Larry's 8 slot increase (16->24) in the array size provided 4 slots beyond what is needed for Larry's box but an even higher ceiling would certainly feel more comfortable. I was thinking 32 but 64 would be better if there aren't any downsides elsewhere of making the array that big.
Gary
-- Gary Hade System x Enablement IBM Linux Technology Center 503-578-4503 IBM T/L: 775-4503 garyhade@us.ibm.com http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc
| |