On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:52:04PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> >> need, this just seems overly cumbersome when what I really want is
> >> vmalloc_32 to just work correctly on 64-bit systems... (why doesn't
> >> vmalloc_32 pass __GFP_DMA32 to the allocator)
> >
> >It probably should, but see
> need, this just seems overly cumbersome when what I really want is
> vmalloc_32 to just work correctly on 64-bit systems... (why doesn't
> vmalloc_32 pass __GFP_DMA32 to the allocator)
It probably should, but see second part of sentence above.
And please never put closed lists in cc of l-
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:38:48PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Doesn't __get_free_pages give me physically linear memory, which while
> nice it isn't essential for what I need, so if I can't get my full
> allocation I could in theory just start to fallback down the orders
> and calling it multiple
>
> On a 64-bit machine GFP_KERNEL can give me any memory... it all works
> fine on 32-bit highmem kernel as I don't get highmem... I really need
> __GFP_DMA32 memory but we don't have a generic allocator that gives
> this out that I can see..
__get_free_pages(..., __GFP_DMA32) on 64bit or __GFP_
"Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> On a 64-bit machine GFP_KERNEL can give me any memory... it all works
> fine on 32-bit highmem kernel as I don't get highmem... I really need
> __GFP_DMA32 memory but we don't have a generic allocator that gives
> this out that I can see..
__get_free_
From: "Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 15:15:48 +1000
> > Perhaps we'll have to create something ugly like vmalloc_nobounce().
> >
> > Remind me again why you're ending up with swiotlb'd pages?
> > vmalloc_32() uses GFP_KERNEL which should use entirely lowmem and thus
> > RA
It might explain why my machine hung when I tried to use
radeon with DRM on my sparc64 workstation :-) I have
investigating that on my todo list.
True, maybe the intersection is me + hw like that + radeon :-)
I don't know what to recommend to you, getting 8MB of linear memory
really just isn'
From: "Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:08:13 +1000
> > >
> > > So when swiotlb happens, as you can guess it all falls apart as the
> > > drm never calls sync functions at any stage...
> >
> > You would have hit this on any platform that does caching
> > in the PCI control
>
> So when swiotlb happens, as you can guess it all falls apart as the
> drm never calls sync functions at any stage...
You would have hit this on any platform that does caching
in the PCI controller as well.
We must not have a great intersect of radeon and such systems..
Coherent memory wa
From: "Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:44:41 +1000
> Okay I've got a bug reported before and now again about > 4GB + radeon
> blows up the DRM... on Intel hw...
>
> What the drm currently does for the PCI GART table is it allocates a
> chunk of memory (8MB) with vmalloc_
Okay I've got a bug reported before and now again about > 4GB + radeon
blows up the DRM... on Intel hw...
What the drm currently does for the PCI GART table is it allocates a
chunk of memory (8MB) with vmalloc_32(), then when it decides to use
it it goes through every page of it calls pci_map_sin
11 matches
Mail list logo
