[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] TTM DMA pool v2.2 or [GIT PULL] (stable/ttm.dma_pool.v2.3) for 3.3

[Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 02:44:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/konrad/xen.git 
> > > stable/ttm.dma_pool.v2.3
> > > 
> > 
> > On what hw did you tested ? With and without xen ? Here radeon
> 
> On AMD and Intel. And with both Nvidia and Radeon cards.
> 64-bit cards (I have a patch where I forced the 64-bit card to use
> the TTM DMA pool code to test) and 32-bit cards (ATI ES1000)
> 
> On baremetal and Xen. Um, Fedora Core 16 as distro.
> 
> Oh, and I also tried PPC (Power Mac 4) but could not get it to boot
> the 3.1 kernel. Something with the LILO grub loader did not work.
> 
> > that doesn't need dma32 doesn't work when forcing swiotlb which
> > kind of expected i guess. Should we expose if swiotlb is enabled
> 
> You did 'swiotlb=force' ?
> > forced so we use dma pool in such case ?

Issue is that when booted without force swiotlb_nr_tlb still return
positive thus we endup using the dma pool path.

Cheers,
Jerome

> Hm, it shoudl have enabled itself. The swiotlb_nr_tlb would return some
> contents and we would.. Oh, you mean you did a 64-bit card _and_
> did swiotlb=force. And since the rdev->dma32 was set to zero it
> did _not_ use the TTM DMA pool.
> 
> Right. I did not do it initially just so that I could limit the scope
> in case I messed up something in the code. But the code has the
> 'no_dma' parameter, so it can easily turn off the DMA TTM code.
> 
> So, to answer your question - sure, we can ignore the rdev_dma32 and
> just use the the swiotlb_nr_tlb to check.
> 
> BTW, thank you for taking a spin with these patches and rebasing them
> on top of yours. I am going to start testing them and reviewing the
> latest batch you sent on Monday.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel