From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:39:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail3.caviumnetworks.com ([12.108.191.235]:16088 "EHLO mail3.caviumnetworks.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1492190Ab0CWBjc (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:39:32 +0100 Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com (Not Verified[192.168.16.9]) by mail3.caviumnetworks.com with MailMarshal (v6,7,2,8378) id ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:39:40 -0700 Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com ([192.168.16.9]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:39:19 -0700 Received: from dd1.caveonetworks.com ([12.108.191.236]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:39:19 -0700 Message-ID: <4BA81BC7.5060600@caviumnetworks.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:39:19 -0700 From: David Daney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zhuang Yuyao CC: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [BUG?] cavium cn56xx and dma_map_single warning References: <4BA79E69.1040803@caviumnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2010 01:39:19.0781 (UTC) FILETIME=[A8322950:01CACA29] Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 26296 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ddaney@caviumnetworks.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On 03/22/2010 06:30 PM, Zhuang Yuyao wrote: > Thanks for your reply. Will this issue be solved soon? Is it a > hardware issue or a software one? A combination. I think a Software fix is possible. > Can I make the 4G-256M memory > reserved so that kernel will not try to allocate memory in this area? > I have never tried it. The issue is maintaining mappings for 32-bit PCI devices. If you only want to support 64-bit devices, it would be easier to address the issue. David Daney > can not use more than 4G ram is bothersome since the memory is so cheap now. :-) > > Thanks very much. > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:44 AM, David Daney wrote: >> >> This is a known issue. >> >> passing mem==3072M will restrict kernel memory usage thus avoiding the >> issue. >> >> David Daney >> >