[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86802c440810041849g421ff524pf987f6c872e1d12a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 18:49:46 -0700
From: "Yinghai Lu" <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: mtrr_cleanup: first 1M should be coverred in var mtrrs
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:46 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> + /*
>> + * [0, 1M) should always be coverred by var mtrr with WB
>> + * and fixed mtrrs should take effective before var mtrr for it
>> + */
>> + nr_range = add_range_with_merge(range, nr_range, 0,
>> + (1ULL<<(20 - PAGE_SHIFT)) - 1);
>> + /* sort the ranges */
>> + sort(range, nr_range, sizeof(struct res_range), cmp_range, NULL);
>> +
>
> The first 1 MB is a total don't care for the variable MTRRs -- they don't
> have to be covered *or* uncovered, since the entire first 1 MB is addressed
> by fixed MTRRs.
so it is safe to put it in WB, and can be spare some regs because it
start from base 0.
>
> In practice, it is *likely* that you're going to want to merge it with a WB
> MTRR, but with various vendors doing all kinds of strange things on
> EFI-damaged platforms, it may not always be that way.
EFI will not use fixed-mtrr for first 1M? and not cover first 1M in
var mtrr with WB? that will run out mtrr regs..
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