On 07/24/2012 06:52 PM, Cong Wang wrote: >> From 6b679d1af20656929c0e829f29eed60b0a86a74f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Stefan Bader <stefan.ba...@canonical.com> >> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:16:33 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] x86/mm: Limit 2/4M size calculation to x86_32 >> >> commit 722bc6b (x86/mm: Fix the size calculation of mapping tables) >> did modify the extra space calculation for mapping tables in order >> to make up for the first 2/4M memory range using 4K pages. >> However this setup is only used when compiling for 32bit. On 64bit >> there is only the trailing area of 4K pages (which is already added). >> >> The code was already adapted once for things went wrong on a 8TB >> machine (bd2753b x86/mm: Only add extra pages count for the first memory >> range during pre-allocation early page table space), but it looks a bit >> like it currently would overdo things for 64bit. >> I only noticed while bisecting for the reason I could not make a crash >> kernel boot (which ended up on this patch). >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.ba...@canonical.com> >> Cc: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> >> Cc: Yinghai Lu <ying...@kernel.org> >> Cc: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> > > Acked-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> > > Sorry for that I was not aware of x86_64 is different with x86 in the > first 2/4M.
Why would there be a difference? Shouldn't the IO space at 0xa0000-0x100000 be mapped with uncacheable attributes (or WC for VGA)? If it's done later, it can be done later for both. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
