Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751093AbVJQT0q (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:26:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751173AbVJQT0q (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:26:46 -0400 Received: from serv01.siteground.net ([70.85.91.68]:56197 "EHLO serv01.siteground.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751093AbVJQT0p (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:26:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:26:37 -0700 From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai To: Alex Williamson Cc: Christoph Lameter , Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org, tglx@linutronix.de, shai@scalex86.org, linville@tuxdriver.com Subject: Re: x86_64: 2.6.14-rc4 swiotlb broken Message-ID: <20051017192637.GC4959@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051017093654.GA7652@localhost.localdomain> <200510171153.56063.ak@suse.de> <200510171740.57614.ak@suse.de> <20051017175231.GA4959@localhost.localdomain> <1129575841.9621.15.camel@lts1.fc.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1129575841.9621.15.camel@lts1.fc.hp.com> 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: 1885 Lines: 41 On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:04:01PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 11:20 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > Umm... SGI does not use the swiotlb and we do not have these issues. HP > > does use the swiotlb on IA64. CCing John and Alex. > ... > > @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ > > /* > > * Get IO TLB memory from the low pages > > */ > > - io_tlb_start = alloc_bootmem_low_pages(io_tlb_nslabs * > > + io_tlb_start = alloc_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(0), io_tlb_nslabs * > > HP ia64 boxes typically use a hardware I/O TLB, so this is not the > normal case. However, the sx1000 boxes are exactly an example that will > break because of this assumption about memory layout. These boxes can > be configured to have various ratios of node local memory and > interleaved memory. Node local memory starts well above 4GB. > Interleaved memory is zero-based, and described in it's own proximity > domain. It therefore looks like a memory-only node. I believe the > above code change would cause us to allocate memory from the node local > range, way too high in the address space for bounce buffers. This memory only node has a node id? Then how about a patch which iterates over nodes in swiotlb.c, trying to allocate DMA'ble memory from node 0 and above until it gets proper memory for swiotlb? Would that be accepatble? I can quickly make a patch for that if it is acceptable.. 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/