Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751058AbVJQRwl (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:52:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751044AbVJQRwl (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:52:41 -0400 Received: from serv01.siteground.net ([70.85.91.68]:12935 "EHLO serv01.siteground.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750747AbVJQRwl (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:52:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:52:31 -0700 From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai To: Andi Kleen Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org, tglx@linutronix.de, shai@scalex86.org, clameter@engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken Message-ID: <20051017175231.GA4959@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051017093654.GA7652@localhost.localdomain> <200510171153.56063.ak@suse.de> <200510171740.57614.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200510171740.57614.ak@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - serv01.siteground.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - scalex86.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1108 Lines: 26 On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:40:56PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Monday 17 October 2005 17:27, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > > ... > > Argh. Which one should I pick? The NODE(0) one looks simpler, but is it > > sufficient for now in practice (with the real one going into 2.6.14+)? > > > > Linus > > First this problem is definitely not critical. AFAIK it only happens on > scalex's unreleased machines. Intel NUMA x86 machines are really rare ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No they are not. IBM X460s are generally available machines and the bug affects those boxes. How can there be a major kernel release which is known to have breakage?? 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? 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/