[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1r6orwptz.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:13:12 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
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?
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org> writes:
> 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.
Last I looked PAT can only demote not promote the type of a page,
except for the specific exception of UC to WC.
Normally the default type is UC so putting a pat type of WB won't
help anything. I may have missed some subtle detail but I remember
looking into this in some detail a while ago and coming to that
conclusion.
It is the BIOS's responsibility to mark all usable memory as WB,
using the MTRRs. If it doesn't it is a BIOS bug.
Eric
-
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