On 12/11/2013 02:55 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> That doesn't answer my question at all.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that this change makes it so Joseph doesn't have to use
>>>> "pci=realloc=off". But why should auto-reallocation be limited to
>>>> buses that have resources above 4GB? That doesn't make any sense.
>>>>
>>>> We should fix the reallocation code so it can deal with this case. If
>>>> there's not enough space for everything, obviously we have to leave
>>>> something unassigned. A ROM BAR is a good candidate for leaving
>>>> unassigned, because most of the time we can get along without it.
>>> Yes, that is ideal and not that simple.
>>> but that would be hard to backport to old kernels.
>>>
>>> BTW, Joseph, can you try
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git
>>> for-pci-3.14
>>> with pci=realloc=on
>>>
>>> on that system?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Yinghai
>> I noticed there was some back and forth on this thread. Do you still
>> want me to test this version, Yinghai?
> Yes, if that works, we would not need to put the patch in upstream for limiting
> realloc auto scope.
>
> Thanks
>
> Yinghai
Another user has confirmed that at test kernel from your branch[0] does
resolve the bug.
Thanks,
Joe
[0]
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/11/2013 02:55 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> That doesn't answer my question at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that this change makes it so Joseph doesn't have to use
>>>>> "pci=realloc=off". But why should auto-reallocation be limited to
>>>>> buses that have resources above 4GB? That doesn't make any sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should fix the reallocation code so it can deal with this case. If
>>>>> there's not enough space for everything, obviously we have to leave
>>>>> something unassigned. A ROM BAR is a good candidate for leaving
>>>>> unassigned, because most of the time we can get along without it.
>>>> Yes, that is ideal and not that simple.
>>>> but that would be hard to backport to old kernels.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, Joseph, can you try
>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git
>>>> for-pci-3.14
>>>> with pci=realloc=on
>>>>
>>>> on that system?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Yinghai
>>> I noticed there was some back and forth on this thread. Do you still
>>> want me to test this version, Yinghai?
>> Yes, if that works, we would not need to put the patch in upstream for limiting
>> realloc auto scope.
>>
>
> Another user has confirmed that at test kernel from your branch[0] does
> resolve the bug.
Hi, Joe,
Bjorn does not want to limit auto realloc, so this patch can not make
to upstream at this point.
so we may have to ask user to append "pci=realloc=off" before we find
more smart way to realloc
resource.
Thanks
Yinghai
On 01/10/2014 12:13 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2013 02:55 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Joseph Salisbury
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 12/09/2013 03:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> That doesn't answer my question at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that this change makes it so Joseph doesn't have to use
>>>>>> "pci=realloc=off". But why should auto-reallocation be limited to
>>>>>> buses that have resources above 4GB? That doesn't make any sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should fix the reallocation code so it can deal with this case. If
>>>>>> there's not enough space for everything, obviously we have to leave
>>>>>> something unassigned. A ROM BAR is a good candidate for leaving
>>>>>> unassigned, because most of the time we can get along without it.
>>>>> Yes, that is ideal and not that simple.
>>>>> but that would be hard to backport to old kernels.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, Joseph, can you try
>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git
>>>>> for-pci-3.14
>>>>> with pci=realloc=on
>>>>>
>>>>> on that system?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Yinghai
>>>> I noticed there was some back and forth on this thread. Do you still
>>>> want me to test this version, Yinghai?
>>> Yes, if that works, we would not need to put the patch in upstream for limiting
>>> realloc auto scope.
>>>
>> Another user has confirmed that at test kernel from your branch[0] does
>> resolve the bug.
> Hi, Joe,
>
> Bjorn does not want to limit auto realloc, so this patch can not make
> to upstream at this point.
>
> so we may have to ask user to append "pci=realloc=off" before we find
> more smart way to realloc
> resource.
>
> Thanks
>
> Yinghai
Hi Yinghai,
In a prior email you mentioned: "Yes, if that works, we would not need
to put the patch in upstream for limiting realloc auto scope." Is the
git tree at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git
somehow different now?
Thanks,
Joe
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Joseph Salisbury
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/10/2014 12:13 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> In a prior email you mentioned: "Yes, if that works, we would not need
> to put the patch in upstream for limiting realloc auto scope." Is the
> git tree at
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git
> somehow different now?
but you boot with "pci=realloc=off", right?
Anyway please try pci/next to see if there is any help.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git pci/next