From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pedro Ribeiro Subject: Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 19:19:22 +0100 Message-ID: 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: In-Reply-To: <20100409180942.GK30801-ahpEBR4enfnCULTFXS99ULNAH6kLmebB@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-usb-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Daniel Mack Cc: Alan Stern , Robert Hancock , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, Greg KH , alsa-devel-K7yf7f+aM1XWsZ/bQMPhNw@public.gmane.org, linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 9 April 2010 19:09, Daniel Mack wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 12:01:27PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Pedro Ribeiro wrote: >> > here is the output of the patch you sent me when the interference = is triggered. >> > >> > The log is long, 1.3mb in size. >> >> I don't see anything suspicious. =A0The transfer_buffer addresses re= peat >> every 32 URBs, and the DMA addresses cycle almost entirely uniformly >> from 0x20000000 to 0x23ffffff in units of 0x2000 (there are a few ga= ps >> 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 prob= lem > here. Pedro, how much RAM does your machine have installed? > > Daniel > > It has 4 GB. Pedro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html