From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:35:18 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: Running out of vmalloc space Message-ID: <20010523103518.X8080@redhat.com> References: <3B04069C.49787EC2@fc.hp.com> <20010517183931.V2617@redhat.com> <3B045546.312BA42E@fc.hp.com> <3B0AF30D.8D25806A@fc.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3B0AF30D.8D25806A@fc.hp.com>; from dp@fc.hp.com on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:15:26PM -0600 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Pinedo Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:15:26PM -0600, David Pinedo wrote: > I followed up on the suggestion of several folks to not map the graphics > board into kernel vm space. While investigating how to do that, I > discovered that the frame buffer space did not need to be mapped -- it > was already being mapped with the control space. So instead of needing > (32M+16M)*2=96M of vmalloc space, I only need 32M*2=64M. That change > seemed easier than figuring out how not to map the board into kernel vm > space, so... ...so you'll end up with a driver which will work fine as long as nobody tries to load it in parallel with another driver which tries to pull the same stunt. It's an easy way out which doesn't work if everybody takes the same easy way out. I *really* think you need to be avoiding the mapping in the first place if at all possible. Cheers, Stephen -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/