[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86802c440801192255t3181d4cav7c55fee2b246f356@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:55:25 -0800
From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Jesse Barnes" <jesse.barnes@...el.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: disable_mtrr_trim only need for x86_64
On Jan 19, 2008 9:37 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > [PATCH] x86: disable_mtrr_trim only need for x86_64
> >
> > mtrr_trim_uncached_memory is only used in x86_64,
> >
> > so disable_mtrr_trim is not needed for x86_32
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai.lu@....com>
>
> That seems like a bug, and if so this patch goes the wrong direction.
> (If the 32-bit code has another solution for the same problem, they
> should be unified.)
>
> The trimming of uncachable memory affects both 32- and 64-bit kernels;
> it's the same hardware, and even 32-bit kernels (with PAE) can access
> memory above 4 GB.
>
the trim fix for x86_64 is update end_pfn, and use that as max_pfn,
and max_low_pfn in setup_arch.
but i386 is setup_arch is only using max_low_pfn.
to make you happy, the simple way is update e820 table so code could
be unified between i386 and x86_64
update the e820 table by checking mtrr like checking gart hole...
is that OK?
YH
--
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