From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x86/mm: Limit 2/4M size calculation to x86_32
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:44:03 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <500FCDF3.7080808@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpVPzB69R1_4E_J5Yw=d1TncqHe0+dWEwOufQniNcpBVtg@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/24/2012 06:52 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> From 6b679d1af20656929c0e829f29eed60b0a86a74f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@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.bader@canonical.com>
>> Cc: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>
> Acked-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-25 10:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-13 13:41 x86/mm: Limit 2/4M size calculation to x86_32 Stefan Bader
2012-07-13 18:12 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-07-15 19:09 ` Stefan Bader
2012-07-19 16:28 ` Stefan Bader
2012-07-24 15:52 ` Cong Wang
2012-07-25 10:44 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2012-07-25 11:14 ` Stefan Bader
2012-07-25 12:32 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-25 13:24 ` Stefan Bader
2012-07-25 13:40 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-31 9:48 ` Stefan Bader
2012-07-31 10:07 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-31 16:31 ` [PATCH] " Stefan Bader
2012-08-31 16:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-08-31 16:56 ` Stefan Bader
2012-09-07 11:12 ` Stefan Bader
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=500FCDF3.7080808@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=stefan.bader@canonical.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).