[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <481A3216.9030705@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 14:11:50 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, TJ <linux@...orld.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why such a big difference in init-time PCI resource call-paths
(x86 vs x86_64) ?
Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 11:16:31AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:07 am TJ wrote:
>> > > In preparation for writing a Windows-style PCI resource allocation
>> > > strategy
>> > >
>> > > - use all e820 gaps for IOMEM resources; top-down allocation -
>> > >
>> > > and thus giving devices with large IOMEM requirements more chance of
>> > > allocation in the 32-bit address space below 4GB (see bugzilla #10461),
>>
>> I tried that some time ago and it turned out that some systems have
>> mappings in holes and don't boot anymore when you fill the holes too much.
>> But that was only considering e820. if you do this it might work if you
>> do it really like windows and consider all resources, including ACPI.
>
> wonder if using holes in MTRR AND e820 could help...
>
Typically not, since the MTRRs won't tell you what is free address space
and what is occupied by non-BAR I/O devices.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists