i am very interested about the fact that it gave you false results when you ran it with mem size below 0xf0000000, beacuse in this case the bios patch have no effect, at least it shouldnt.
can you try to drive memtest86 on a real physical host with more than 4giga ? On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 14:26 -0500, Ryan Harper wrote: > * Izik Eidus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 13:59]: > > On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 13:24 -0500, Ryan Harper wrote: > > > * Izik Eidus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:49]: > > > > On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 10:09 -0500, Ryan Harper wrote: > > > > > * Izik Eidus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 01:29]: > > > > > > Hey Ryan, > > > > > > thanks for the testing, i hope you didnt have too much problems to > > > > > > get it working. > > > > > > > > > > Sure, it wasn't too much trouble. > > > > > > > > > > > anyway as far as i can tell it wont have problem to drive up to 256 > > > > > > + 3.75 giga ram for guest. > > > > > > if we want it to drive systems with even more ram we have two > > > > > > options ( both very easily applied ): > > > > > > we can add another cmos byte to a "future reserved" byte, or we can > > > > > > use the 3 cmos bytes that i already added and say that > > > > > > we store memory in the above bios memory at multiplier of 1 MB. > > > > > > it is important we decide now how we want to store the memory, that > > > > > > in the future when 256 + 3.75 giga of ram wont be enough > > > > > > we wouldn't have to change bochs bios again. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I think we want to settle on a single method which gets us the > > > > > most memory as possible. I think rather than doing the "future > > > > > reserve" > > > > > we should go head an move over to 1MB multiplier. > > > > > > > > > well this sound like a smart idea, > > > > but what we have to think about is: > > > > first in this way we have just 64 gigabyte of ram (unless we work with > > > > the extra cmos memory bytes) > > > > plus if we change the way we use the "normal cmos bytes", we arent > > > > breaking compatibility with really old stuff that check the cmos > > > > directly without doing bios interrupt? (i mean by ports) > > > > > > Hrm, yes. This might be an issue already. I just booted memtest-86 > > > v3.3 with 6G, and memtest says we have 528G of RAM. Hrm, even below 2G, > > > memtest still reports bogus memory values. > > > > memtest-86, report false memory values when the system is below 2G ?, in > > this case i guess it isnt our fault... > > memtest-86 was derived originally from linux 1.x i dont know if it even > > support above 4 giga of ram. > > > > without the patch what result do you get from this memtest when runing > > below 2giga? > > It is accurate without the patch. It can see up to 2039M guest with no > changes to QEMU. Also, if you apply the qemu size patch (s/int/unsigned > long) you can get up to 3831M guest to run without changing the > BIOS. The memtest isos I've tried have no problem seeing that. > > > > > (win2003 get good memory information on 14giga guest as well, so i guess > > the e820 from the bios interrupt side, is right) > > Yes, I've looked at the e820 and that looks perfectly fine. Not sure > what the issue here is. I'll see if I can track it down though. > > > > We might need to go look at a newer BIOS spec to see how this is done in > > > newer bioses. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
