[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DA61D26.8050500@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:01:10 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.39-rc3
On 04/13/2011 02:50 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 01:48:48PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> - addr = memblock_find_in_range(0, 1ULL<<32, aper_size, 512ULL<<20);
>> + addr = memblock_find_in_range(0, 1ULL<<32, aper_size, 512ULL<<21);
>
> Btw, while looking at this code I wondered why the 512M goal is enforced
> by the alignment. Start could be set to 512M instead and the alignment
> can be aper_size as it should. Any reason for such a big alignment?
>
> Joerg
>
> P.S.: The box is still in the office, I will try this debug-patch
> tomorrow.
The only reason that I can think of is that the aperture itself can be
huge, and perhaps 512 MiB is the biggest such known. 512ULL<<21 is of
course a particularly moronic way to write 1 GiB, but it was a debug patch.
The value 512 MiB apparently comes from
7677b2ef6c0c4fddc84f6473f3863f40eb71821b, which is apparently totally ad
hoc; effectively it tries to prevent a collision with kexec by
hardcoding the kdump allocation as it sat at that point in time in the
GART assignment rules.
Yeah. Brilliant.
-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