[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070206162542.GJ8665@alberich.amd.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:25:42 +0100
From: "Andreas Herrmann" <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
To: "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>
cc: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
"Suresh B Siddha" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Richard Gooch" <rgooch@...e-mbox.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, discuss@...-64.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:54:57AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >> I don't think I remember a restriction here, at least not below 44 bits
> > >> (that's where pfn-s would need to become 64-bit wide).
> > >
> > >The i386 mm code only supports 4 entries in the PGD, so more than 36bit cannot
> > >be mapped right now.
> >
> > That has nothing to do with the number of physical address bits.
>
> You couldn't use the memory in any ways.
>
> Anyways I give up -- the check is probably not needed, unless Andreas
> comes up with a good reason.
No, I haven't a good reason to restrict the base address to fewer
than 44 bits.
So the question is, should I completely remove that check or adapt it
to check for 44 bit instead of 36 bit?
Regards,
Andreas
--
AMD Saxony, Dresden, Germany
Operating System Research Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists