On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
<santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday 24 January 2014 01:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> The patch which is now commit 457ff1d {lib/swiotlb.c: use
> memblock apis for early memory allocations} was the breaking the
> boot on Andrew's machine. Now if I look back the patch, based on your
> above description, I believe below hunk waS/is the culprit.
>
> @@ -172,8 +172,9 @@ int __init swiotlb_init_with_tbl(char *tlb, unsigned long nslabs, int verbose)
> /*
> * Get the overflow emergency buffer
> */
> - v_overflow_buffer = alloc_bootmem_low_pages_nopanic(
> - PAGE_ALIGN(io_tlb_overflow));
> + v_overflow_buffer = memblock_virt_alloc_nopanic(
> + PAGE_ALIGN(io_tlb_overflow),
> + PAGE_SIZE);
> if (!v_overflow_buffer)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
>
> Looks like 'v_overflow_buffer' must be allocated from low memory in this
> case. Is that correct ?
yes.
but should the change like following
commit 457ff1de2d247d9b8917c4664c2325321a35e313
Author: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue Jan 21 15:50:30 2014 -0800
lib/swiotlb.c: use memblock apis for early memory allocations
@@ -215,13 +220,13 @@ swiotlb_init(int verbose)
bytes = io_tlb_nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT;
/* Get IO TLB memory from the low pages */
- vstart = alloc_bootmem_low_pages_nopanic(PAGE_ALIGN(bytes));
+ vstart = memblock_virt_alloc_nopanic(PAGE_ALIGN(bytes), PAGE_SIZE);
if (vstart && !swiotlb_init_with_tbl(vstart, io_tlb_nslabs, verbose))
return;
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>