Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 22:38:22 -0600
From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Case: 7454422: Re: Kernel 2.6.21.3 does not work with 8GB of RAM
 on Intel 965WH motherboards. (FULL DMESG)
In-reply-to: <82e4877d0705301757v580a4ca5yebe2a565f0b97552@mail.gmail.com>
To: Parag Warudkar <parag.warudkar@gmail.com>
Cc: jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-id: <465E513E.60903@shaw.ca>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <82e4877d0705301757v580a4ca5yebe2a565f0b97552@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1240
Lines: 35

Parag Warudkar wrote:
> Robert Hancock wrote:
> 
> 
>> 0-3319MB
>> 4096-8832MB
>>
>> leaving 64MB of memory at the top of RAM uncached. What do you want to
>> bet that something important (kernel code?) is getting loaded there..
>>
>> So essentially it's a BIOS problem, it's not setting up the MTRRs
>> properly in order to map all of RAM as cacheable. As Andi says, complain
>> to Intel.
>>
> 
> Could the BADRAM patch be useful for him?
> http://rick.vanrein.org/linux/badram/download.html has 2.6.21 version.
> It says it supports x86_64. May be using this patch he can exclude
> that RAM from being used/accessed?

I think that mem=8832M would work as well, to make the kernel use only 
the memory that is marked cacheable. (It looks like this parameter takes 
the highest memory address we want the kernel to use, not the highest 
memory amount.)

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/