[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49E367E8.7080202@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:27:20 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...ux.intel.com, rjw@...k.pl, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/setup] x86, setup: "glove box" BIOS calls -- infrastructure
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Yes, we could do memory checks, and ... hey, we already do that:
>>
>> bb577f9: x86: add periodic corruption check
>> 5394f80: x86: check for and defend against BIOS memory corruption
>>
>> ... and i seem to be the one who implemented it! ;-)
>
> s/implemented/merged+fixed :-)
Actually, what would probably be more productive than trying to track
corruption would be to drop the low 1 MB of memory before suspend to RAM
- make sure that it is as close to completely unused as possible.
All *known* cases of low memory corruption are either boot time or due
to s2ram.
I don't know how realistic it is to make the low 1 MB completely unused
over the s2ram cycle. The trivial way of doing it is to simply not use
it -- it's only some 600K after all; a more sophisticated way would be
to explicitly constrain it to transient uses that would be dead at s2ram.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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