linux-kernel - Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:30:16 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Bo Brantén <bosse@....umu.se>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mpm@...enic.com
Subject: Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386

Bo Brantén wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 
>> This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
>> booting with mem=nnnM where nnn is some number smaller than your
>> actual amount of memory.
> 
> Thank you for that advice, the system has 4GB and if I boot with 
> mem=3072M it will run as fast as normal while if I don't use the mem 
> option it will run 10 times slower, however if I use a figure like 
> mem=3500M the kernel will panic, is there any way to determine the 
> highest usable figure without try and error?

Yes, look at how your MTRRs are set up (cat /proc/mtrr).

	-hpa
-
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/