From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764912AbYEAVKd (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 17:10:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759593AbYEAVKZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 17:10:25 -0400 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.29]:12583 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758686AbYEAVKZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 17:10:25 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=uvvVz5HXopQOM2xYkdKQBkk5NmM46jLPmoz/a0NfOfIPxC4cSK0myy4B4wvK76AEynJFXZ3W4eJqJgGU2okss6+N2lcBA0Vu0gnAgGynDZOSo2+Eu12H1zdZoCZwei1bvIzF67byJ6h8v4knCRcrAW7aF2YBlwEcTfDIbKZUp3A= Message-ID: <86802c440805011410q17c24653l292ccb6dad211a06@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 14:10:04 -0700 From: "Yinghai Lu" To: "Andi Kleen" Subject: Re: Why such a big difference in init-time PCI resource call-paths (x86 vs x86_64) ? Cc: "Jesse Barnes" , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, TJ , "Ingo Molnar" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <20080501201111.GO20451@one.firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1209571638.25051.54.camel@hephaestion.lan.tjworld.net> <200805011116.31782.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <20080501201111.GO20451@one.firstfloor.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 11:16:31AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:07 am TJ wrote: > > > In preparation for writing a Windows-style PCI resource allocation > > > strategy > > > > > > - use all e820 gaps for IOMEM resources; top-down allocation - > > > > > > and thus giving devices with large IOMEM requirements more chance of > > > allocation in the 32-bit address space below 4GB (see bugzilla #10461), > > I tried that some time ago and it turned out that some systems have > mappings in holes and don't boot anymore when you fill the holes too much. > But that was only considering e820. if you do this it might work if you > do it really like windows and consider all resources, including ACPI. wonder if using holes in MTRR AND e820 could help... YH