On Tuesday, June 5, 2007 2:46 am Andi Kleen wrote: > > 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. > > Jesse wrote such a patch (or rather it limitted end_pfn), but it > broke the X server for so far unknown reasons. It looks like I broke the /proc/mtrr interface somehow... I'll try to fix it tomorrow. Jesse - 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/
- 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: [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: Andi Kleen <[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: [PATCH] never called printk statement in ide-taskfile.c::wait_drive_not_busy
- Next by Date: Re: [5/5] 2.6.22-rc4: known regressions
- 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):
 |