On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:32:53PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 06/12/2016 03:40 PM, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> >Jun 8 10:12:52 jumpclient kernel: mlx5_core 0000:08:00.1: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 266240 bytes)
> >Jun 8 10:12:52 jumpclient kernel: swiotlb: coherent allocation failed for device 0000:08:00.1 size=266240
>
> Hello,
>
> I think the above means that the coherent memory allocation succeeded but
> that the test dev_addr + size - 1 <= DMA_BIT_MASK(32) failed. Can someone
> from Mellanox tell us whether or not it would be safe to set
> coherent_dma_mask to DMA_BIT_MASK(64) for the mlx4 and mlx5 drivers?
Bart and Laurence,
We are actually doing it For mlx5 driver.
926 static int mlx5_pci_init(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, struct mlx5_priv *priv)
<...>
961 err = set_dma_caps(pdev);
187 static int set_dma_caps(struct pci_dev *pdev)
<...>
201 err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
202 if (err) {
203 dev_warn(&pdev->dev,
204 "Warning: couldn't set 64-bit consistent PCI DMA mask\n");
205 err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
206 if (err) {
207 dev_err(&pdev->dev,
208 "Can't set consistent PCI DMA mask, aborting\n");
209 return err;
210 }
211 }
118 static inline int pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(struct pci_dev *dev,u64 mask)
119 {
120 return dma_set_coherent_mask(&dev->dev, mask);
121 }
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
