[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110413222207.GB18463@8bytes.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:22:07 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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 Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:01:10PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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.
Well, that would work as well by just using aper_size as alignment, the
aperture needs to be aligned on its size anyway. This code only runs
when Linux allocates the aperture itself and if I am mistaken is uses
always 64MB when doing this.
Joerg
--
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