Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:12:08 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: mem=16MB laptop testing |
| |
Hi!
> > (c) mem= no longer bounds the highest physical address, but rather > > the sum of memory in e820 entries post-sanitization. This > > means a ZONE_NORMAL with about 384KB showed up, with duly > > perverse heuristic consequences for page_alloc.c > > I don't understand this. You mean almost all memory was in ZONE_DMA? > > "mem=" does not accurately emulate having that much memory. So a 512M box > booted with "mem=256M" has a different amount of memory from a 256M box > booted with no "mem=" option. It would be nice to fix that, but I've never > looked into it.
I do not think this wants to be fixed. It should remain compatible with 2.4.X, and if it is not that's a bug [and pretty dangerous & hard to debug one -- if you mark something as ram which is not, you get real bad data corruption].
Pavel
-- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - 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/
| |