[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <504D6490.2060606@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:54:56 +0800
From: "zhenzhong.duan" <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: mtrr: Constrain WB MTRR to max phys mem prior to cleanup
δΊ 2012-09-08 02:40, H. Peter Anvin ει:
> On 09/07/2012 10:44 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> \>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
>> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
>
> I really don't like it as it introduces yet another user of max_pfn,
> which should be going away. Furthermore, the better question is what
> remaining needs there are for MTRR cleanup; historically the reason
> was that it prevented the display from being mapped WC via MTRR due to
> the MTRR conflict resolution rules favoring UC.
For a large memory system, mtrr_cleanup offten fail in most case. Even
if it succeed, it often occupy all of MTRR entrys.
How was display mapped as WC in above case?
Why did bios give a lot of space then real mem, for hotplug?
>
> However, the right way to fix that is to use the PAT interfaces, which
> doesn't have this drawback -- then MTRR cleanup becomes entirely
> superfluous and the problem goes away.
Do you mean disable MTRR totally here?
Regards
zduan
--
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