[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081026171210.7b3b096a@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:12:10 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: "Diego M. Vadell" <dvadell@...uxclusters.com.ar>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PAT and MTRRs
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:46:21 -0100
"Diego M. Vadell" <dvadell@...uxclusters.com.ar> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have 6 identical PCs (HPC cluster) with MTRR problems. In older
> kernels, I had to use "mem=3300M", or else, I would get a very slowly
> boot (as when you run out of MTRRs).
>
> So I thought that PAT would make this lack of MTRRs problem go
> away, and upgraded to 2.6.26.6 and 2.6.27.2, but it didn't: I still
> get (from dmesg)
>
> x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106
> WARNING: BIOS bug: CPU MTRRs don't cover all of memory, losing 704MB
> of RAM.
>
> Most probably, I understood wrong. I read lwn.net's article [1]
> about PAT several times, Documentation/x86/pat.txt , tried to use
> mtrr_chunk_size= and mtrr_gran_size= in various combinations (as
> discussed in this LKML thread [2]), but I still don't get it.
>
> So, what did I miss? Am I wrong thinking that PAT is a better MTRR
> (wrt setting the cache type of the RAM)?
>
PAT can't make memory cachable that the MTRR's have as uncachable.
What PAT *can* do is, within an MTRR, do fine grained mapping...
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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