On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 15:53 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 11:10 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >
> > Still, I think it would be better to only set memory_limit when the mem
> > size is not a multiple of the PAGE_SIZE - so that memory_limit retains
> > it's function as bo
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 11:10 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> Still, I think it would be better to only set memory_limit when the mem
> size is not a multiple of the PAGE_SIZE - so that memory_limit retains
> it's function as both the value of the limit and a boolean.
OK, how's this?
ppc: force
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 11:10 -0600, Milton Miller wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 14:07 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 16:09 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If this is all too much, then I'm close to giving
On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 14:07 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 16:09 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
If this is all too much, then I'm close to giving up and burning a
64KB page, which requires only ALIGN_DOWN() in the kerne
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 14:07 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 16:09 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > If this is all too much, then I'm close to giving up and burning a
> > 64KB page, which requires only ALIGN_DOWN() in the kernel.
>
> ppc: force memory size to be a mult
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 16:09 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>
> If this is all too much, then I'm close to giving up and burning a
> 64KB page, which requires only ALIGN_DOWN() in the kernel.
ppc: force memory size to be a multiple of PAGE_SIZE
Ensure that total memory size is page-aligned, becau
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 16:09 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>
> Basically my revised proposal is to add explicit memory reservation
> properties
> to the device tree. Currently, "/memreserve" properties in .dts files are not
> present in the device tree itself, only in the FDT header. I think th
On Friday 14 November 2008 11:29:35 Milton Miller wrote:
> > I simply don't see a good place to do this in the kernel. It would have
> > to be before the first lmb_alloc() call, which for safety would put it
> > inside early_init_devtree() -- along with the other lmb_reserve()
> > calls.[1]
> >
> >
Resend with correct reply threading.
On Fri Nov 14 at 06:54:15 EST in 2008, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:44 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Again, why can't we just stick something in the kernel code that
reserves the last page ? It could be in prom.c or it could be cal
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri Nov 14 at 06:54:15 EST in 2008, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:44 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Again, why can't we just stick something in the kernel code that
reserves the last page ? It could be in prom.c or it could be called
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:44 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> Again, why can't we just stick something in the kernel code that
> reserves the last page ? It could be in prom.c or it could be called by
> affected 4xx platforms by the platform code, whatever, but the reserve
> map isn't reall
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:44:56 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 09:11 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > Forget pages. The errata is about the last 256 bytes of physical
> > memory.
> >
> > > I still find it a bit tricky to have memory nodes not aligne
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 09:11 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> Forget pages. The errata is about the last 256 bytes of physical
> memory.
>
> > I still find it a bit tricky to have memory nodes not aligned on
> nice
> > fat big boundaries tho.
>
> I don't know what you're referring to. The patch I
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 22:52 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:31 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:37:43 +1100
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:06 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > > The curr
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:31 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:37:43 +1100
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:06 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > The current CHIP11 errata truncates the device tree memory node, and
> > > subtracts
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:37:43 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:06 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > The current CHIP11 errata truncates the device tree memory node, and
> > subtracts
> > (hardcoded) 4096 bytes. This breaks kernels with larger PAGE
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:06 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> The current CHIP11 errata truncates the device tree memory node, and subtracts
> (hardcoded) 4096 bytes. This breaks kernels with larger PAGE_SIZE, since the
> bootmem allocator assumes that total memory is a multiple of PAGE_SIZE.
>
> I
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:06:46PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> The current CHIP11 errata truncates the device tree memory node, and subtracts
> (hardcoded) 4096 bytes. This breaks kernels with larger PAGE_SIZE, since the
> bootmem allocator assumes that total memory is a multiple of PAGE_SIZE.
The current CHIP11 errata truncates the device tree memory node, and subtracts
(hardcoded) 4096 bytes. This breaks kernels with larger PAGE_SIZE, since the
bootmem allocator assumes that total memory is a multiple of PAGE_SIZE.
Instead, use a device tree memory reservation to reserve only the 256
19 matches
Mail list logo
