From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755465AbZEaAtR (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2009 20:49:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753469AbZEaAtH (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2009 20:49:07 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:43487 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752936AbZEaAtG (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2009 20:49:06 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,277,1241420400"; d="scan'208";a="461945965" Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 08:49:05 +0800 From: Shaohua Li To: Eric Anholt Cc: Kyle McMartin , Hugh Dickins , "airlied@redhat.com" , "dri-devel@lists.sf.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org" , "stable@kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: i915: ensure objects are allocated below 4GB on PAE Message-ID: <20090531004905.GA14691@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> References: <20090526162717.GC14808@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090527001840.GC16929@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090527004250.GA11835@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <1243446012.8400.37.camel@gaiman.anholt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1243446012.8400.37.camel@gaiman.anholt.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 01:40:12AM +0800, Eric Anholt wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 08:42 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 08:18:40AM +0800, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:55:50PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > I'm confused: I thought GFP_DMA32 only applies on x86_64: > > > > my 32-bit PAE machine with (slightly!) > 4GB shows no ZONE_DMA32. > > > > Does this patch perhaps depend on another, to enable DMA32 on 32-bit > > > > PAE, or am I just in a muddle? > > > > > > > > > > No, you're exactly right, I'm just a muppet and missed the obvious. > > > Looks like the "correct" fix is the fact that the allocation is thus > > > filled out with GFP_USER, therefore, from ZONE_NORMAL, and below > > > max_low_pfn. > > > > > > Looks like we'll need some additional thinking to get true ZONE_DMA32 on > > > i386... ugh, I'll look into it tonight. > > For i386, GFP_USER is enough. But 945G GART can only map to physical page < 4G, > > so for x64, we need GFP_DMA32. This is the reason I add extra GFP_DMA32. > > Those 945Gs don't have memory located above 4G, from my reading of the > chipset specs. ok, then GFP_DMA32 can be removed from the patch.