From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Mack Subject: Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:49:12 +0200 Message-ID: <20100410124912.GP30801@buzzloop.caiaq.de> References: <20100409180942.GK30801@buzzloop.caiaq.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from buzzloop.caiaq.de (buzzloop.caiaq.de [212.112.241.133]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC2F243F0 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:49:15 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Pedro Ribeiro Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Robert Hancock List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 07:19:22PM +0100, Pedro Ribeiro wrote: > On 9 April 2010 19:09, Daniel Mack wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 12:01:27PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > >> I don't see anything suspicious. =A0The transfer_buffer addresses repe= at > >> every 32 URBs, and the DMA addresses cycle almost entirely uniformly > >> from 0x20000000 to 0x23ffffff in units of 0x2000 (there are a few gaps > >> where the interval is a little bigger). > > > > The DMA pointers do indeed look sane. I wanted to take a deeper look at > > this and set up a 64bit system today. However, I fail to see the problem > > here. Pedro, how much RAM does your machine have installed? > > > > Daniel > > > > > = > It has 4 GB. Upgraded my machine now to 4GB, but I still can't reproduce this bug. Pedro, can you send your config, please? Daniel