[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201008020940.09552.konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:40:08 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: konrad@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com, akataria@...are.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: enlarge iotlb buffer on demand
On Saturday 31 July 2010 23:03:11 FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:07:06 -0400
>
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@...nel.org> wrote:
> > I took your patch and was trying to fit it over the
> > stable/swiotlb-0.8.4 branch and when I did so a found couple of things..
> >
> > > > @@ -215,14 +222,14 @@ swiotlb_late_init_with_default_size(size_t
> > > > default_size) bytes = io_tlb_nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT;
> >
> > You should also initialize the __io_tlb_start array first:
>
> Yeah, I know. As I wrote, this patchset breaks IA64.
>
> I really merge to swiotlb's two memory allocator mechanisms
> (swiotlb_init_with_default_size and
> swiotlb_late_init_with_default_size). I need to look at the x86 memory
> boot code after memblock surgery finishes.
<nods>
>
> And as you know, I've not fixed the error path and swiotlb_free. I'll
> do later if people are not against swiotlb dynamic allocation.
It looks to me like it would be a good patch.
I am curious about the handling of the -ENOMEM stage. Naturally we would
return an error the device - are the most common ones (ahci, r8169,
ata_piix - those that are DMA_32) equipped to deal with unavailable memory?
--
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