lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Strange mtrrs in Aspire One
    On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 14:54:24 -0700, "Yinghai Lu" <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:

    > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
    > > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 6:22 AM, J.A. Magallón <jamagallon@ono.com> wrote:
    > >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:05:51 -0700, "Yinghai Lu" <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:57 PM, J.A. Magallón <jamagallon@ono.com> wrote:
    > >>> > Hi all...
    > >>> >
    > >>> > My aspire one is giving some strange MTRR settings with rc7-git5 (and
    > >>> > prevous kernels, but that is what I run now...):
    > >>> >
    > >>> > one:~> cat /proc/mtrr
    > >>> > reg00: base=0xfffe0000 (4095MB), size= 128KB: write-protect, count=1
    > >>> > reg01: base=0xfffc0000 (4095MB), size= 128KB: uncachable, count=1
    > >>>
    > >>> could make mtrr_cleanup to support 128K gran_size
    > >>>
    > >>> > reg02: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
    > >>> > reg03: base=0x10000000 ( 256MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
    > >>> > reg04: base=0x1f800000 ( 504MB), size= 8MB: uncachable, count=1
    > >>> > reg05: base=0x1f600000 ( 502MB), size= 2MB: uncachable, count=1
    > >>> > reg06: base=0x1f500000 ( 501MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1
    > >>>
    > >>> > reg07: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size= 128KB: uncachable, count=1
    > >>> ..
    > >>> > BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009fc00 (usable)
    > >>>
    > >>> last entry is really sick...
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> I have applied the patches you have posted in other threads, and this
    > >> give a very strange result. The mtrr cleanup did nothing, and I had to put
    > >> some printk's all around.
    > >
    > > will have one patch to assume the [0, 1M) to be coverred by var mtrrs.
    > >
    >
    > please check other three patches.
    >
    > [PATCH 1/3] x86: mtrr_cleanup: print out correct type
    > [PATCH 2/3] x86: mtrr_cleanup: first 1M should be coverred in var mtrrs
    > [PATCH 3/3] x86: mtrr_cleanup: treat WRPROT as UNCACHEABLE
    >

    Thanks, will try.

    > you may need to boot with "mtrr_gran_size=64k mtrr_chunk_size=64k"
    >

    This makes me think about a question.
    In the dual xeon box, the 'cleanup' ends with this setup:

    werewolf:~> cat /proc/mtrr
    reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
    reg01: base=0x40000000 (1024MB), size= 512MB: write-back, count=1
    reg02: base=0x60000000 (1536MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
    reg03: base=0x70000000 (1792MB), size= 128MB: write-back, count=1
    reg04: base=0x78000000 (1920MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1
    reg05: base=0x7c000000 (1984MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1
    reg06: base=0x7ff00000 (2047MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1

    Ths options with 0 me loose were:

    gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G
    ...
    gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G
    ...
    gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G
    ...
    gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G
    ...
    gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G
    gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G
    ...
    Found optimal setting for mtrr clean up
    gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose RAM: 0G

    Why did it choose that using 7 registers ? Should'n it get that with the
    smallest number of used registers, and from those the bigger gran_size ?
    If the purpose is to leave space for more mtrrs (from X or other...).
    In short, what is the purpose of having this:

    reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
    reg01: base=0x40000000 (1024MB), size= 512MB: write-back, count=1
    reg02: base=0x60000000 (1536MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
    reg03: base=0x70000000 (1792MB), size= 128MB: write-back, count=1
    reg04: base=0x78000000 (1920MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1
    reg05: base=0x7c000000 (1984MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1
    reg06: base=0x7ff00000 (2047MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1

    instead of this:

    reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
    reg01: base=0x7ff00000 (2047MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1

    If both set a hole, not a set of valid zones without holes ?

    ??

    --
    J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()ono!com> \ Software is like sex:
    \ It's better when it's free
    Mandriva Linux release 2009.0 (Cooker) for i586
    Linux 2.6.25-jam18 (gcc 4.3.1 20080626 (GCC) #1 SMP
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-05 01:05    [W:0.029 / U:0.552 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site