Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756009AbXHWBQV (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:16:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752138AbXHWBQK (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:16:10 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-4-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:36357 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750960AbXHWBQJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:16:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:16:06 -0700 From: Jeremy Higdon Cc: "Luck, Tony" , Kamalesh Babulal , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Balbir Singh , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3-mm1 Kernel panic - not syncing: DMA: Memory would be corrupted Message-ID: <20070823011606.GL89849@sgi.com> References: <20070822172541.GA8058@bingen.suse.de> <46CC811C.9010600@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A023B2D39@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> <46CCB79E.7070109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A023B2F6A@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> <20070822231111.GD89849@sgi.com> <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A023B2FD5@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> <20070822235445.GG89849@sgi.com> <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A023B307D@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> <20070823010948.GK89849@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070823010948.GK89849@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1785 Lines: 37 On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:09:48PM -0700, Jeremy Higdon wrote: > > I traced the pci_alloc_consistent calls from PrimeIocFifos on my > > system. There are two calls for each ioc. The first is for > > 266368 bytes, the second for 16320 bytes. > > > > I wonder why Kamalesh's system wants the slightly different > > amount (263200 bytes) from what my system asks for? > > > > It also looks to be a little unfriendly to swiotlb to ask for > > more than 256K at a time (see IO_TLB_SEGSIZE) in swiotlb.c > > > > -Tony > > I believe those would vary a bit based on the exact firmware > rev and perhaps nvram settings. Also driver settings, but > those are presumably the same. > ioc0: LSI53C1030 C0: Capabilities={Initiator} | ioc0: LSI53C1030 B2: Capabilities={Initiator} > scsi0 : ioc0: LSI53C1030 C0, FwRev=01032821h, Ports=1, MaxQ=2 | scsi0 : ioc0: LSI53C1030 B2, FwRev=01030a00h, Ports=1, MaxQ=2 > ioc1: LSI53C1030 C0: Capabilities={Initiator} | ioc1: LSI53C1030 B2: Capabilities={Initiator} > scsi1 : ioc1: LSI53C1030 C0, FwRev=01032821h, Ports=1, MaxQ=2 | scsi1 : ioc1: LSI53C1030 B2, FwRev=01030a00h, Ports=1, MaxQ=2 > ioc2: LSI53C1030 C0: Capabilities={Initiator} | ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:00:1d.0[A] -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> Actually, you can see that you have a different chip rev level and different firmware revs, so that's probably why the requested sizes are a little different. Compare /proc/mpt/ioc0/info if you're curious. There's probably a small difference. jeremy - 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/