Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932270AbVJQTFh (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:05:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932267AbVJQTFh (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:05:37 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:62891 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932270AbVJQTFg (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:05:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:04:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Muli Ben-Yehuda cc: Andi Kleen , discuss@x86-64.org, Ravikiran G Thirumalai , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, shai@scalex86.org, clameter@engr.sgi.com, muli@il.ibm.com, jdmason@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken In-Reply-To: <20051017184523.GB26239@granada.merseine.nu> Message-ID: References: <20051017093654.GA7652@localhost.localdomain> <200510172008.24669.ak@suse.de> <20051017182755.GA26239@granada.merseine.nu> <200510172032.45972.ak@suse.de> <20051017184523.GB26239@granada.merseine.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1684 Lines: 41 On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 08:32:45PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > and would like to be able to run 2.6.14 on them when it > > > comes out... > > > > So you're saying you tested it and it doesn't work? > > Not quite; I'm saying that form the description up-thread it sounds > like there's a good chance it won't. Jon Mason (CC'd) has access to > such a machine. Jon, can you please try the latest hg tree with and > without the patch and see how it fares? NOTE! Even if the machine has 4GB or more of memory, it's entirely likely that the quick "use NODE(0)" hack will work fine. Why? Because the bootmem memory should still be allocated low-to-high by default, which means that as logn as NODE(0) has _enough_ memory in the DMA range, we should be ok. So I _think_ the simple one-liner NODE(0) patch is sufficient, and should work (and is a lot more acceptable for 2.6.14 than switching the node ordering around yet again, or doing bigger surgery on the bootmem code). So the only thing that worried me (and made me ask whether there might be machines where it doesn't work) is if some machines might have their high memory (or no memory at all) on NODE(0). It does sound unlikely, but I simple don't know what kind of strange NUMA configs there are out there. And I'm definitely only interested in machines that are out there, not some theoretical issues. Linus - 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/