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

Jesse Barnes wrote: Yeah, that's what I needed. end_pfn looks ok, but I guess my test is a little too precise. It should be if ((highest_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT) < end_pfn) rather than !=. Right. That made the message disappear. Nice to know my BIOS is really fixed. Thanks, Pim - To unsubscr

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

Jesse Barnes wrote: It looks like end_pfn might be ~0UL now... can you print that out in your configuration? Er, do you need the value of end_pfn ? Here's what I changed: if ((highest_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT) != end_pfn) { printk(KERN_WARNING "***\n"); printk(KERN_WARNI

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

Jesse Barnes wrote: Yeah, you're right I should use an unsigned format string. Pim, if you change it to %lu does the printk in your dmesg look better? Er, no. MTRRs don't cover all of memory, trimmed 18446744073709486080 pages Thanks, Pim - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

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

Andi Kleen wrote: That's impossible. Either it limited your RAM or it didn't change anything. OK, maybe it's cosmetic, but I would not expect a negative number With old BIOS it printed MTRRs don't cover all of memory, trimmed 196608 pages with new BIOS it prints MTRRs don't cover a

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

First: Jesse saved my life by releasing a patch that made my GigaByte Intel G33 based motherboard use all of its 8GB RAM and not be slow as hell. Then: GigaByte released a BIOS update that fixed the root of the problem. I went back from patched vanilla kernel to "official" Fedora kernel. Now: Je

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

Pim Zandbergen wrote I reported this to GigaByte, and lo and behold, they sent me a fixed BIOS within 48 hours. Kudos to Taipeh! They sent the BIOS image in a private message, so it might take a while before it's available on their website. It is now, and it is described as "Fix

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

Jesse Barnes wrote: What, are you going to report this to GigaByte? No, but you should if you haven't already. I think GigaByte probably gets its BIOS from another BIOS vendor (maybe Intel), so when that vendor provides them with an update, they'll probably provide it on their website.

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

Jesse Barnes wrote: On Friday, June 15, 2007 3:17:11 Pim Zandbergen wrote: Not that it matters much, as the current i810/intel xorg driver does not yet support the GMA3100, so I'm using the vesa driver. I *think* the latest trees support that chip. If you're feeling brave,

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

Jesse Barnes wrote: Thanks for testing, Pim. Glad it works for you. The pleasure was all on my side. Keep an eye out for BIOS upgrades, the next version might fix it. What, are you going to report this to GigaByte? Thanks, Pim - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri

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

Justin Piszcz wrote: That's strange, I guess different chipsets 'chew' up different amounts of memory OR you have your DVT(?) (video-card memory/aperature) set to 256MB? I have mine set to 128MB, in top: Mem: 8039576k total, 6187304k used, 1852272k free, 696k buffers Me: Mem: 74166

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

Thanks for this patch. I was having the exact same symptoms as Justin Piszcz, on a different, but similar motherboard: Motherboard: GigaByte GA-G33-DS3R BIOS rev: F2 Chipset: Intel G33 Memory: 8GB Distro: Fedora 7 x86_64 Kernel: kernel-2.6.21-1.3194.fc7 Building vanilla 2.6.22-rc4 with your pat

Re: RH 7.1 on IBM xSeries 240

>Yes, I have the newest BIOS and SR Firmware. >I have 2 x 1GHz CPUs and IBM PCI ServeRAID 4.71.00 You mean all of BIOS, firmware and Linux driver are at version 4.71? Where did you find BIOS 4.71 and firmware 4.71? The latest BIOS & firmware I could find is 4.50. There is, however a driver v

[PATCH] IBM ServeRAID driver version 4.71 update

In the just-released Red Hat 7.1 source disk, the file kernel-2.4.2-2.src.rpm contains linux-2.4.2-ips-471.patch. This looks like the official update to kernel 2.4.X for the IBM ServeRAID driver. I have not seen this patch published elsewhere. Could we have this patch merged into the standard ke

Re: IBM ServeRAID 4L firmware 4.40.03

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:19:05 GMT, Robert Miciovici wrote: >look what I get on one of the installation log screens: > >* Cannot find /tmp/drivers/rhdd-6.1; bad driver disk >* Cannot find /tmp/drivers/modinfo; bad driver disk >* Cannot find /tmp/drivers/modules.dep; bad driver disk >* Cannot find /

Re: [PATCH] IBM ServeRAID driver version 4.50 update

>4.50 has the same Linux kernel code as the stuff merged. The newer stuff is >firmware only it seems The Linux kernel code comes with version 4.20. I count 128 lines of "diff -u" output on ips.c and 44 on ips.h. It also looks like both versions have different patches applied to them. - To unsu

[PATCH] IBM ServeRAID driver version 4.50 update

Could someone make sure IBM's latest ServeRAID drivers get merged into the mainstream kernel? The standard kernel sources contain a hopelessly outdated version. IBM do not seem to actively submit their work, so that's why I am asking. You can find version 4.50 at ftp://ftp.pc.ibm.com/pub/pccbbs

Re: ServeRaid 4M with IBM netfinity and kernel 2.4.x

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:52:18 GMT, in fa.linux.kernel, Alan Cox wrote: >I don't believe IBM have provided an 'official' 2.4 patch set for the serveraid >yet so there may be bugs lurking. They have, but they keep it pretty well hidden. Version 4.50 of the ServeRAID driver seems to support kernel 2