On Monday, November 05, 2007 4:26 Andi Kleen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:32:24AM -0800, Ray Lee wrote: > > (Don't trim cc:s.) > > > > On Nov 5, 2007 8:00 AM, Bo Brantén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Intel Core 2 Quad > > >> and I noticed that the 64-bit versions was at least 10 times > > >> slower than the 32-bit versions, > > > > > > After I uppgraded the BIOS the mtrr looks like below, and now it > > > works if I boot with mem=4736M so I can use all memory but it > > > still doesn't work without the mem parameter then it will run as > > > slow as before. > > Then the BIOS is still broken Comapl in to your motherboard vendor. > > > > reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1 > > > reg01: base=0x80000000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1 > > > reg02: base=0xc0000000 (3072MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1 > > > reg03: base=0xcf800000 (3320MB), size= 8MB: uncachable, count=1 > > > reg04: base=0xcf700000 (3319MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1 > > > reg05: base=0x100000000 (4096MB), size= 512MB: write-back, > > > count=1 reg06: base=0x120000000 (4608MB), size= 128MB: > > > write-back, count=1 > > > > Jesse Barnes (cc:d) wrote a patch to address this, I think (x86: > > trim memory not covered by WB MTRRs), but as far as I can tell it > > hasn't been merged yet. System is Intel, 4gb of RAM. > > It wasn't merged because it broke booting on some systems. > Besides the memory would be still lost -- all it did was to automate > the "mem=XXXX" line.
Andi, do you have any details on which system broke and how? I haven't heard back from you on my last message on the subject... the patch was in -mm for awhile with no complaints. Ultimately, this is a broken BIOS issue, but still, it would be nice if the kernel handled it better. Thanks, 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/
