On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 09:56 -0700, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 23:33, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok don't worry about trying to isolate it, there should be a fix for it by
> > > 2.6.10.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Zwane
> >
> > Well, if somebody is working on it, I would be happy to very the
> > fixes and assist in providing additional debugging information.
> > Please don't take my previous email the wrong way - I do want to
> > help any way I can ...
>
> Not to worry, if you'd like to be notified when the bug is resolved or a
> patch is immediately available you may open a bug on bugzilla.kernel.org,
> upon completion just send me the bug number and i'll assign myself as the
> owner.
>
> Thanks again,
> Zwane
Just curious, did anybody ever look in to this at all ? I keep
on downloading new kernels and trying 4GB of memory - still no
luck.
I did file a bug report but didn't get any notifications at all.
I don't subscribe to the linux-kernel list so not sure if anything
ever came up or not.
Is there a way to get this fixed ?
Thanks,
rudi
=============================================================
Rudolf Usselmann, ASICS World Services, http://www.asics.ws
Your Partner for IP Cores, Design, Verification and Synthesis
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:56:25PM +0700, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
> Just curious, did anybody ever look in to this at all ? I keep
> on downloading new kernels and trying 4GB of memory - still no
> luck.
>
> I did file a bug report but didn't get any notifications at all.
> I don't subscribe to the linux-kernel list so not sure if anything
> ever came up or not.
>
> Is there a way to get this fixed ?
How much ram do you see with 4GB installed running a 64bit kernel?
What does /proc/meminfo show?
How about the memory map dmesg shows at the start of boot?
Len Sorensen
Rudolf Usselmann <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Just curious, did anybody ever look in to this at all ? I keep
> on downloading new kernels and trying 4GB of memory - still no
> luck.
>
> I did file a bug report but didn't get any notifications at all.
> I don't subscribe to the linux-kernel list so not sure if anything
> ever came up or not.
>
> Is there a way to get this fixed ?
Does the following patch (against a 2.6.12rc3 kernel) fix your problems?
-Andi
Don't look up struct page * of physical address in iounmap
it could be in a memory hole not mapped in mem_map
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
Index: linux/arch/x86_64/mm/ioremap.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/mm/ioremap.c
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/mm/ioremap.c
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ void iounmap(volatile void __iomem *addr
if ((p->flags >> 20) &&
p->phys_addr + p->size - 1 < virt_to_phys(high_memory)) {
/* p->size includes the guard page, but cpa doesn't like that */
- change_page_attr(virt_to_page(__va(p->phys_addr)),
+ change_page_attr_addr(p->phys_addr,
p->size >> PAGE_SHIFT,
PAGE_KERNEL);
global_flush_tlb();
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
> Just curious, did anybody ever look in to this at all ? I keep
> on downloading new kernels and trying 4GB of memory - still no
> luck.
>
> I did file a bug report but didn't get any notifications at all.
> I don't subscribe to the linux-kernel list so not sure if anything
> ever came up or not.
>
> Is there a way to get this fixed ?
I still am unable to find an associated bug with it, is there an updated
BIOS for your board?
Rudolf Usselmann <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Just curious, did anybody ever look in to this at all ? I keep
> on downloading new kernels and trying 4GB of memory - still no
> luck.
>
> I did file a bug report but didn't get any notifications at all.
> I don't subscribe to the linux-kernel list so not sure if anything
> ever came up or not.
>
> Is there a way to get this fixed ?
Does the following patch (against a 2.6.12rc3 kernel) fix your problems?
-Andi
[...]
Please use this version instead, previous one was broken.
Don't look up struct page * of physical address in iounmap
it could be in a memory hole not mapped in mem_map
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
Index: linux/arch/x86_64/mm/ioremap.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/mm/ioremap.c
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/mm/ioremap.c
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ void iounmap(volatile void __iomem *addr
if ((p->flags >> 20) &&
p->phys_addr + p->size - 1 < virt_to_phys(high_memory)) {
/* p->size includes the guard page, but cpa doesn't like that */
- change_page_attr(virt_to_page(__va(p->phys_addr)),
+ change_page_attr_addr(__va(p->phys_addr),
p->size >> PAGE_SHIFT,
PAGE_KERNEL);
global_flush_tlb();
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 16:07 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:56:25PM +0700, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
> > Just curious, did anybody ever look in to this at all ? I keep
> > on downloading new kernels and trying 4GB of memory - still no
> > luck.
> >
> > I did file a bug report but didn't get any notifications at all.
> > I don't subscribe to the linux-kernel list so not sure if anything
> > ever came up or not.
> >
> > Is there a way to get this fixed ?
>
> How much ram do you see with 4GB installed running a 64bit kernel?
>
> What does /proc/meminfo show?
>
> How about the memory map dmesg shows at the start of boot?
>
> Len Sorensen
I do see the full 4G. With Fedora Core 2 32bit, I can use all
4G as well. All my problems started when I "upgraded" to x86_64 ...
Best Regards,
rudi
=============================================================
Rudolf Usselmann, ASICS World Services, http://www.asics.ws
Your Partner for IP Cores, Design, Verification and Synthesis
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 16:24 -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2005, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
>
> > Just curious, did anybody ever look in to this at all ? I keep
> > on downloading new kernels and trying 4GB of memory - still no
> > luck.
> >
> > I did file a bug report but didn't get any notifications at all.
> > I don't subscribe to the linux-kernel list so not sure if anything
> > ever came up or not.
> >
> > Is there a way to get this fixed ?
>
> I still am unable to find an associated bug with it, is there an updated
> BIOS for your board?
No there is not. I already have the latest BIOS. The 32 bit
version of Fedora Core 2 seems to work just fine. It's when
I "upgraded" to 64 bit when I could not use 4G of memory
anymore ...
Best Regards,
rudi
=============================================================
Rudolf Usselmann, ASICS World Services, http://www.asics.ws
Your Partner for IP Cores, Design, Verification and Synthesis
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 02:48 +0700, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
> All my problems started when I "upgraded" to x86_64 ...
>
And you are surprised by this?
I don't know why so many users buy an arch that didn't exist two years
ago and expect it to be 100% as reliable as 32 bit i386 which has been
around for 20 plus years. I see tons of bug reports where people don't
bother to mention that "oh, btw this is a mixed 32/64 bit environment"
or whatever.
When you make the choice to live on the bleeding edge, these things will
happen. If you don't like filling out bug reports stick with a 32 bit
machine ;-)
Lee
"I do see the full 4G. With Fedora Core 2 32bit, I can use all
4G as well. All my problems started when I "upgraded" to x86_64 ..."
Are you using an old 32bit processor or a new 64bit processor? That would make a difference
Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 16:07 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:56:25PM +0700, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just curious, did anybody ever look in to this at all ? I keep
>>>on downloading new kernels and trying 4GB of memory - still no
>>>luck.
>>>
>>>I did file a bug report but didn't get any notifications at all.
>>>I don't subscribe to the linux-kernel list so not sure if anything
>>>ever came up or not.
>>>
>>>Is there a way to get this fixed ?
>>>
>>>
>>How much ram do you see with 4GB installed running a 64bit kernel?
>>
>>What does /proc/meminfo show?
>>
>>How about the memory map dmesg shows at the start of boot?
>>
>>Len Sorensen
>>
>>
>
>I do see the full 4G. With Fedora Core 2 32bit, I can use all
>4G as well. All my problems started when I "upgraded" to x86_64 ...
>
>Best Regards,
>rudi
>=============================================================
>Rudolf Usselmann, ASICS World Services, http://www.asics.ws
>Your Partner for IP Cores, Design, Verification and Synthesis
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 16:03 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 02:48 +0700, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
> > All my problems started when I "upgraded" to x86_64 ...
> >
>
> And you are surprised by this?
>
> I don't know why so many users buy an arch that didn't exist two years
> ago and expect it to be 100% as reliable as 32 bit i386 which has been
> around for 20 plus years. I see tons of bug reports where people don't
> bother to mention that "oh, btw this is a mixed 32/64 bit environment"
> or whatever.
>
> When you make the choice to live on the bleeding edge, these things will
> happen. If you don't like filling out bug reports stick with a 32 bit
> machine ;-)
>
> Lee
Hi Lee,
no I am not surprised ! But, hey, if nobody tries, we will
never debug it, right ?! ;*)
I did fill out a bug report several month ago (and did not mind
it), I was just following up because I didn't hear anything about
it in quite sometime !
Best Regards,
rudi
=============================================================
Rudolf Usselmann, ASICS World Services, http://www.asics.ws
Your Partner for IP Cores, Design, Verification and Synthesis
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 02:48:42AM +0700, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
> I do see the full 4G. With Fedora Core 2 32bit, I can use all
> 4G as well. All my problems started when I "upgraded" to x86_64 ...
In 32bit it probably uses the PSE36 extensions or something, which isn't
the same thing as flat 64bit memory access. It could just be a matter
of needing a memory hole somewhere for PCI space or something. I only
have 1G in my 64bit machine so I haven't got near these problems.
Len Sorensen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Terry Vernon wrote:
> "I do see the full 4G. With Fedora Core 2 32bit, I can use all
>
> 4G as well. All my problems started when I "upgraded" to x86_64 ..."
>
> Are you using an old 32bit processor or a new 64bit processor? That
> would make a difference
How on earth would he be able to run ANYTHING that's 64bit if
his CPU was 32bit?
His system is a 64bit system.
// Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCgtMoBrn2kJu9P78RAlVeAJ9Nn4t4xDptAwPZ9X0quxoE4+epdQCgtoWP
cpTQqHIkcwlMcceEMge7WYI=
=j68y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 02:48:42AM +0700, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
>
>>I do see the full 4G. With Fedora Core 2 32bit, I can use all
>>4G as well. All my problems started when I "upgraded" to x86_64 ...
>
>
> In 32bit it probably uses the PSE36 extensions or something, which isn't
> the same thing as flat 64bit memory access. It could just be a matter
> of needing a memory hole somewhere for PCI space or something. I only
> have 1G in my 64bit machine so I haven't got near these problems.
I don't recall him saying he's changed kernel from the default redhat
kernel in which case he's running the RedHat 4G/4G split kernel and not
using PSE/PAE.
// Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCgtPhBrn2kJu9P78RAvRnAKCnSbeH+4i/vzAfRYfWJXgFad3fpACfVQdp
JWUmCke6CvQ1mq5Gj4SvkZM=
=50yt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 05:56 +0200, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 02:48:42AM +0700, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
> >
> >>I do see the full 4G. With Fedora Core 2 32bit, I can use all
> >>4G as well. All my problems started when I "upgraded" to x86_64 ...
> >
> >
> > In 32bit it probably uses the PSE36 extensions or something, which isn't
> > the same thing as flat 64bit memory access. It could just be a matter
> > of needing a memory hole somewhere for PCI space or something. I only
> > have 1G in my 64bit machine so I haven't got near these problems.
>
> I don't recall him saying he's changed kernel from the default redhat
> kernel in which case he's running the RedHat 4G/4G split kernel and not
> using PSE/PAE.
>
> // Stefan
I'm using whatever is available on http://www.kernerl.org :*)
Sorry I am totally lost what the above terminology means.
Is that a configuration option that I should try, or a totally
different branch of the kernel ?
Thanks !
rudi
=============================================================
Rudolf Usselmann, ASICS World Services, http://www.asics.ws
Your Partner for IP Cores, Design, Verification and Synthesis
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 05:56 +0200, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
>>> In 32bit it probably uses the PSE36 extensions or something, which isn't
>>> the same thing as flat 64bit memory access. It could just be a matter
>>> of needing a memory hole somewhere for PCI space or something. I only
>>> have 1G in my 64bit machine so I haven't got near these problems.
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:04:53AM +0700, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
>> I don't recall him saying he's changed kernel from the default redhat
>> kernel in which case he's running the RedHat 4G/4G split kernel and not
>> using PSE/PAE.
PSE36 is 4MB pages (no 4KB pages allowed!), 36-bit physical addresses.
-- wli