[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070602010539.GA13512@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 18:05:39 -0700
From: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:41:57PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2007 2:19:43 Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 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 just checked, yes the MTRRs win for UC types. But it sounds like the cases
> we're talking about are actually situations where there's no MTRR coverage,
> so the default type is used. The manual doesn't specifically call out how
> memory using the default type interacts with PAT, but it may well be that it
> stays uncached if the default type is uncached. Again that argues for fixing
> the MTRR mapping problem in some way.
>
I feel, having a silent/transparent workaround is not a good idea. With that
chances are BIOS bug will go unnoticed (having an error message in dmesg may not
get noticed either). Probably we should just panic at boot with a
detailed message about the e820 mtrr discrepancy (which can be logged as
a BUG to BIOS provider) and suggest a temporary workaround of "mem=___".
Thanks,
Venki
-
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