Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763437AbXFAVgP (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:36:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759889AbXFAVgB (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:36:01 -0400 Received: from outbound-mail-63.bluehost.com ([69.89.21.23]:60308 "HELO outbound-mail-63.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1759162AbXFAVgA (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:36:00 -0400 From: Jesse Barnes To: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately? Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:35:56 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Justin Piszcz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200706011407.51779.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <20070601211943.GO7217@one.firstfloor.org> In-Reply-To: <20070601211943.GO7217@one.firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706011435.56440.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> X-Identified-User: {642:box128.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 76.102.120.196 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1675 Lines: 37 On Friday, June 1, 2007 2:19:43 Andi Kleen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:07:51PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Friday, June 1, 2007 2:14:17 Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Jesse Barnes writes: > > > > (or we get proper PAT support, which I think would make this problem > > > > go away as well). > > > > > > No it won't. If the basic MTRRs for memory are wrong just having PAT > > > support in drivers (which already exist in a limited form already, just > > > for UC only) won't change anything. > > > > No obviously just using PAT for drivers wouldn't help, I was thinking > > more of having one PAT type be WB memory, and using it by default for > > most PTEs > > Then the BIOS couldn't override it anymore in case it is needed somewhere. > e.g. normally we just use normal 2MB direct mappings for the hole > if there is memory beyond it and the hole doesn't need to be 2MB aligned. > Just assuming UC for all reserved pages would be also pretty drastic > and likely result in many 2MB pages being split and using a lot more > TLB. > > > covering normal memory. If that's not possible, then it seems sensible > > to > > And normally the MTRRs win, don't they (if I remember the table correctly) > So if the MTRR says UC and PAT disagrees it might not actually help I didn't check that part of the spec, that might be true. If so, then we really need some sort of MTRR fix no matter what. Jesse - 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/