Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:57:53 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Windows side agrees that lowmem corruption is a problem too |
| |
On 06/08/2010 02:56 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >>> I agree that dis-using <1M by default is probably the sanest option. >> >> But please limit it to newer systems only (DMI present && year > 200?). There >> are many old machines running fine. Losing 1MB from 16MB is a bad thing. > > Losing the low 1MB is bad thing anyway for things like firmware flashing > and other weird crap that needs low pages (floppy controllers etc). > > Losing 64K (but reporting corruption in it in a big scary way) is > probably sensible for distributions, but its a config item so its policy > so that wouldn't be a problem. > > It has to be painful to the vendors so they get complaints, reports and > support call costs. Otherwise they won't have the correct incentives to > fix their mess.
We have already functionally lost 64K on all existing machines... I think the current blacklist covers 90% or more of all systems in existence, and we keep filling in the few holes that remain.
Adding the remaining half-megabyte of RAM really shouldn't be done unconditionally, but as I said it could plausibly be reserved for ZONE_DMA only.
-hpa
| |