On 11/11/2013 03:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/11/2013 03:35 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Oops! I had misunderstood how the checker worked -- I thought it
> checked the *reserved* memory, but it in fact reserves memory
> *independently* and then checks it.
>
And now I understand why I had
On 11/11/2013 03:35 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> If we reserve everything in low memory, all the time (which I very much
> argue we should do) then the checker becomes a no-op and can be removed.
>
Oops! I had misunderstood how the checker worked -- I thought it
checked the *reserved* memory, bu
* H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 11:02 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> [0.00] reserving inaccessible SNB gfx pages
> >> [0.00] memblock_reserve: [0x00-0x10]
>
> This is on a Sandy Bridge system, which I guess I managed to miss the
> first time. Un
On 11/07/2013 11:02 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> [0.00] reserving inaccessible SNB gfx pages
>> [0.00] memblock_reserve: [0x00-0x10]
This is on a Sandy Bridge system, which I guess I managed to miss the
first time. Unfortunately low memory corruption is exp
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 10/17/2013 11:57 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>
>>> And the low memory checker never even ran before, since it had nothing
>>> to check. Earlier the lower reserved region would be
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/17/2013 11:57 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>
>> And the low memory checker never even ran before, since it had nothing
>> to check. Earlier the lower reserved region would be included in the
>> e820-reserved area if I read the code corr
On 10/17/2013 11:57 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>
> And the low memory checker never even ran before, since it had nothing
> to check. Earlier the lower reserved region would be included in the
> e820-reserved area if I read the code correctly, and now it's just
> marked reserved by the memblock cod
7 matches
Mail list logo
