Re: [PATCH] trim memory not covered by WB MTRRs

[Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:27:46PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 6, 2007 4:24 pm Justin Piszcz wrote:
> > > The mem= approach though looks slightly off, but I haven't looked
> > > at x86_64's mem= handling to see why.  From a high level though,
> > > adjusting end_pfn is the right thing to do, since theoretically
> > > mem= could choose to make holes in your low memory and keep your
> > > high memory in the allocation pools (though it's not generally
> > > implemented this way).
> > >
> > > Jesse
> >
> > Ahh, ok!  Sounds great, I will keep running the kernel with your
> > patch without mem= and let you know if I see any issues.
> >
> > Chances of getting this into 2.6.22-rc5?
> 
> I'm not sure it's appropriate for -rc5 since it mucks around with some 
> early boot ordering, but I'll leave that to Andi, since it does address 
> some real bugs people have been seeing.

I don't think the patch is suitable for merging at this time. Perhaps
if it survives some time in -mm* / 2.6.23* it could be backported
in a later 2.6.22 stable release. But right now it definitely
needs more testing and addressing of my review comments.

> Can we add your "Tested-by:  Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>" to 
> the patch? :)

All such headers are only for the trail of blame and do you want to blame
Justin if anything goes wrong? Perhaps it should rather have a 
Blame-to: <whoever wrote Justin/Jesse's BIOS> but that also wouldn't 
help without concrete contact points.

-ANdi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/