> My suggestion would be to allocate top-down in the 32-bit IOMMU space. I think that's good for normal things, but it's not unreasonable to want to map > 4 GB of memory at once for an Infiniband device. So maybe we would want some heuristics about the size of the mapping being requested or the amount of 32-bit space left to decide whether a mapping should be below 4 GB. - R. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: [Intel IOMMU][patch 8/8] Preserve some Virtual Address when devices cannot address entire range.
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [Intel IOMMU][patch 8/8] Preserve some Virtual Address when devices cannot address entire range.
- From: Ashok Raj <[email protected]>
- Re: [Intel IOMMU][patch 8/8] Preserve some Virtual Address when devices cannot address entire range.
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [Intel IOMMU][patch 8/8] Preserve some Virtual Address when devices cannot address entire range.
- From: David Miller <[email protected]>
- Re: [Intel IOMMU][patch 8/8] Preserve some Virtual Address when devices cannot address entire range.
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 2/7] genhd: expose AN to user space
- Next by Date: Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
- Previous by thread: Re: [Intel IOMMU][patch 8/8] Preserve some Virtual Address when devices cannot address entire range.
- Next by thread: Re: [Intel IOMMU][patch 8/8] Preserve some Virtual Address when devices cannot address entire range.
- Index(es):
 |