"Yinghai Lu" <[email protected]> writes: > On 6/4/07, Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Exactly, and given that this is a fairly easy thing to do, and that >> occasionally we see systems where this happens (even if their BIOS is >> later fixed). It is likely worth it for someone to write up the patch >> and that compare MTRRs with available memory, and to complain and >> reserve all memory that MTRRs claim is not write-back. >> > that is good. > Sometime BIOS can not even keep mtrr to the identical between > different CPU in SMP system. > > Or reset mtrr according to e820 table. Resetting the mtrrs according to match the e820 table is attractive and it would be even easier to set the MTRR default type to write-back, and just handle everything else with PAT. However that would most likely do horrible things to any BIOS going into SMI mode, and even a more modest scheme with reprogramming MTRRs would likely have similar problems, where we put something in the wrong caching mode. So the only safe thing we can do is not use memory that is not write-back cached. That we can positively detect and is a conservative action so if anything will work that will. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Justin Piszcz <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Justin Piszcz <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: "Yinghai Lu" <[email protected]>
- Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] Documentation/CodingStyle: Add rules for goto labels (-v2)
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH/RFC] signal races/bugs, losing TIF_SIGPENDING and other woes
- Previous by thread: Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- Next by thread: Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- Index(es):
 |