From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, TJ <linux@tjworld.net>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why such a big difference in init-time PCI resource call-paths (x86 vs x86_64) ?
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 22:11:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080501201111.GO20451@one.firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200805011116.31782.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
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.
> > So, why the big difference in implementations?
> > What are the implications of each?
> > Is one preferable to the other?
I don't remember why it is different. Probably wasn't intentional.
But in general x86-64 is less fragile than i386 here because it has the e820
allocator and can deal better with conflicts.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-01 20:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1209571638.25051.54.camel@hephaestion.lan.tjworld.net>
2008-05-01 18:16 ` Why such a big difference in init-time PCI resource call-paths (x86 vs x86_64) ? Jesse Barnes
2008-05-01 20:11 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2008-05-01 20:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-05-01 20:29 ` Jesse Barnes
2008-05-01 21:10 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-05-01 21:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
[not found] <fa.GFIas4KVpQq9pUpviRWeT8L+oBs@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.hdrruKIvW+GZA0AESo+nBXNURSA@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.9Qhgua9PuRzPYMHNs+ZG5Q7/Hbg@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.sQSbKD/rf/mnDK28NkngvUl4UA8@ifi.uio.no>
2008-05-02 5:03 ` Robert Hancock
2008-05-02 5:01 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-05-02 8:03 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080501201111.GO20451@one.firstfloor.org \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
--cc=linux@tjworld.net \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox