[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH -v2 10/13] x86: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Yinghai Lu <> wrote:
> From: Jacob Shin <>
> Currently direct mappings are created for [ 0 to max_low_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT )
> and [ 4GB to max_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT ), which may include regions that are not
> backed by actual DRAM. This is fine for holes under 4GB which are covered
> by fixed and variable range MTRRs to be UC. However, we run into trouble
> on higher memory addresses which cannot be covered by MTRRs.
> Our system with 1TB of RAM has an e820 that looks like this:
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x00000000000983ff] usable
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000098400-0x000000000009ffff] reserved
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000000d0000-0x00000000000fffff] reserved
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000c7ebffff] usable
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000c7ec0000-0x00000000c7ed7fff] ACPI data
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000c7ed8000-0x00000000c7ed9fff] ACPI NVS
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000c7eda000-0x00000000c7ffffff] reserved
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fec00000-0x00000000fec0ffff] reserved
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fee00000-0x00000000fee00fff] reserved
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fff00000-0x00000000ffffffff] reserved
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000e037ffffff] usable
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000e038000000-0x000000fcffffffff] reserved
> BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000010000000000-0x0000011ffeffffff] usable
> and so direct mappings are created for huge memory hole between
> 0x000000e038000000 to 0x0000010000000000. Even though the kernel never
> generates memory accesses in that region, since the page tables mark
> them incorrectly as being WB, our (AMD) processor ends up causing a MCE
> while doing some memory bookkeeping/optimizations around that area.
> This patch iterates through e820 and only direct maps ranges that are
> marked as E820_RAM, and keeps track of those pfn ranges. Depending on
> the alignment of E820 ranges, this may possibly result in using smaller
> size (i.e. 4K instead of 2M or 1G) page tables.
> -v2: move changes from setup.c to mm/init.c, also use for_each_mem_pfn_range
> instead. - Yinghai Lu
> -v3: add calculate_all_table_space_size() to get correct needed page table
> size. - Yinghai Lu
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Shin <>

Yinghai's sign-off is missing.

Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <>

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-03 08:22    [W:0.119 / U:3.432 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site