On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Yinghai Lu <ying...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I applied your patch to 3.6.11 and changed the panic() to pr_info() >> and also changed enough_mem_for_swiotlb() to always return false to >> simulate not enough memory condition as this system does have enough >> memory. >> >> So at least on this AMD system, your patch will result in a panic. > > ok, thanks for testing. > > if enough_mem_for_swiotlb() return false really, allocating buffer > for swiotlb with bootmem would panic already, right? > > so this patch just delay the panic a while for AMD system with > unhandled devices by IOMMU. > > Thanks > > Yinghai
Right. It will eventually panic. I think this is not a valid test. I am planning to run more tests without forcing no memory condition which is what I should have done in the first place. I will let you know what I find, very likely Monday. Thanks, -- Shuah -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
