On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:02:33AM +0200, Pekka Pietikainen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 02:20:26PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 19:18:36 -0800
> > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > b44 requires an order-8 allocation? Good luck...
> > Yes, it allocates a full TX ring worth of bounce buffers
> > to work around a DMA addressing limitation. It should do
> > a bunch of smaller consistent allocations instead of one
> > huge one, that's for sure.
> -ENOHARDWARE (Santa got me an Athlon64 with dual GigE) so someone else will
> have to pick up the ball. Shouldn't be too difficult, quickly thinking
> something like:
Found some testers, even when the allocations are done a page at a time it
still won't work, something else is always sucking up GFP_DMA. I don't think
there really a way to work around the DMA issue and be useful to the 99% of
the userbase that don't need the workaround (only people with a non-standard
VM layout actually do). IIRC making the ring smaller makes it crash and
burn for whatever reason so that's not a solution either.
Awful kludge of the day would be to just fake having a 4GB DMA mask and
check every consistent allocation until something over 1GB gets used, then
set the mask correctly to 1GB and watch the kernel give you <=16MB mem...
or the even more trivial:
#define B44_DMA_MASK 0x3fffffff
#define B44_DMA_MASK 0xffffffff
Or fix the generic i386 PCI DMA stuff, but is that worth it for just one