Justin Piszcz wrote:
I think that mem=8832M would work as well, to make the kernel use only
the memory that is marked cacheable. (It looks like this parameter
takes the highest memory address we want the kernel to use, not the
highest memory amount.)
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Cana
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Parag Warudkar wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
0-3319MB
4096-8832MB
leaving 64MB of memory at the top of RAM uncached. What do you want to
bet that something i
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Parag Warudkar wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
0-3319MB
4096-8832MB
leaving 64MB of memory at the top of RAM uncached. What do you want to
bet that something important (kernel code?) is getting loaded the
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Parag Warudkar wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
0-3319MB
4096-8832MB
leaving 64MB of memory at the top of RAM uncached. What do you want to
bet that something important (kernel code?) is getting loaded there..
So essentially it's a BIOS problem, it'
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Parag Warudkar wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
I think that mem=8832M would work as well, to make the kernel use only
the memory that is marked cacheable. (It looks like this parameter takes
the highest memo
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Parag Warudkar wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
I think that mem=8832M would work as well, to make the kernel use
only the memory that is marked cacheable. (It looks like this
parameter takes the highest memory address we want the kernel to use,
not the
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Parag Warudkar wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
I think that mem=8832M would work as well, to make the kernel use only the
memory that is marked cacheable. (It looks like this parameter takes the
highest memory address we want the kernel to use, not the highest memory
amoun
Robert Hancock wrote:
I think that mem=8832M would work as well, to make the kernel use only
the memory that is marked cacheable. (It looks like this parameter
takes the highest memory address we want the kernel to use, not the
highest memory amount.)
Yep, and that would be much easier too.
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Parag Warudkar wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
0-3319MB
4096-8832MB
leaving 64MB of memory at the top of RAM uncached. What do you want to
bet that something important (kernel code?) is getting loaded there..
So essentially it's a BIOS problem, it'
On 5/30/07, Robert Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
> That output looked nasty, attaching entries from syslog.
>
> Justin.
Here's your E820 memory map, from dmesg:
BIOS-e820: - 0008f000 (usable)
BIOS-e820: 0008f000 - 000a (rese
Parag Warudkar wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
0-3319MB
4096-8832MB
leaving 64MB of memory at the top of RAM uncached. What do you want to
bet that something important (kernel code?) is getting loaded there..
So essentially it's a BIOS problem, it's not setting up the MTRRs
properly in order to
Robert Hancock wrote:
0-3319MB
4096-8832MB
leaving 64MB of memory at the top of RAM uncached. What do you want to
bet that something important (kernel code?) is getting loaded there..
So essentially it's a BIOS problem, it's not setting up the MTRRs
properly in order to map all of RAM as cach
Justin Piszcz wrote:
> That output looked nasty, attaching entries from syslog.
>
> Justin.
Here's your E820 memory map, from dmesg:
BIOS-e820: - 0008f000 (usable)
BIOS-e820: 0008f000 - 000a (reserved)
BIOS-e820: 000e - 0010 (r
Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I use 8GB of memory on my x86_64 system, CPU-bound processes are VERY
> slow, up to 36x slower than usual.
Likely a BIOS problem; e.g. misconfigured MTRRs. Complain to your motherboard
vendor.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 16:33, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Am I the first person to try using 8 gigabytes of RAM on the 965
> chipset?
>
No. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/29/222
Same problem on ASUS P5B-VM with 4GB memory, if "memory remap feature" in
BIOS is activated. Without this option only 2
Yes, you are correct, the netconsole output from another machine is shown
below. If we can access the memory directly, why is it so slow? :( Am I
the first person to try using 8 gigabytes of RAM on the 965 chipset?
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Kernel dmes
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Kernel dmesg attached from 8GB bootup.
It looks like part of the start of the output was truncated..
Robert, how come the option is not applicable in 64-bit mode? If I want
to use all 8GB of memory I need to run a 32-bit kernel?
Justin.
Highmem and PAE (which are ess
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Short Description of Problem:
Linux 2.6.21.3 does not run properly with 8GB of ram on the Intel 965WH
motherboard.
I found it interesting in make menuconfig on x86_64 there is no 4G
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Short Description of Problem:
Linux 2.6.21.3 does not run properly with 8GB of ram on the Intel 965WH
motherboard.
Long Description of Problem:
When I use 8GB of memory on my x86_64 system, CPU-bound processes are VERY
slow, u
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Short Description of Problem:
Linux 2.6.21.3 does not run properly with 8GB of ram on the Intel 965WH
motherboard.
Long Description of Problem:
When I use 8GB of memory on my x86_64 system, CPU-bound processes are VERY
slow, up to 36x slower than usual. My temporary fix i
20 matches
Mail list logo
