Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

"Joerg Roedel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:08:12PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> "Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > You are referring to current Linux implementation? >> > The AMD64 architecture increased physical address size in PSE mode to >> >

Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:08:12PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > You are referring to current Linux implementation? > > The AMD64 architecture increased physical address size in PSE mode to > > 40 bits. So at least it would be possible to use m

Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

"Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:54:23AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> "Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 05:26:12PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> "Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >

Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:54:23AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 05:26:12PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> "Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> The limit is per cpu not per architecture. So i

Re: [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

"Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 05:26:12PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> "Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > mtrr: fix issues with large addresses >> > >> > Fixes some issues with /proc/mtrr interface: >> > o If physical address size cr

Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:54:57AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:53, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >> I don't think I remember a restriction here, at least not below 44 bits > > >> (that's where pfn-s would need to become 64-bit wide). > > > > > >The i386 mm code only supports

Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:31:45AM +, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06.02.07 08:53 >>> > >On Monday 05 February 2007 23:50, Siddha, Suresh B wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:19:59PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > >> > o added check to restrict base address to 3

Re: [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 05:26:12PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > mtrr: fix issues with large addresses > > > > Fixes some issues with /proc/mtrr interface: > > o If physical address size crosses the 44 bit boundary > > size_or_mask is evaluat

Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:53, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> I don't think I remember a restriction here, at least not below 44 bits > >> (that's where pfn-s would need to become 64-bit wide). > > > >The i386 mm code only supports 4 entries in the PGD, so more than 36bit > >cannot > >be mapped righ

Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

>> I don't think I remember a restriction here, at least not below 44 bits >> (that's where pfn-s would need to become 64-bit wide). > >The i386 mm code only supports 4 entries in the PGD, so more than 36bit cannot >be mapped right now. That has nothing to do with the number of physical address b

Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

On Tuesday 06 February 2007 10:31, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06.02.07 08:53 >>> > >On Monday 05 February 2007 23:50, Siddha, Suresh B wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:19:59PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > >> > o added check to restrict base address to 36 bit o

Re: [discuss] [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

>>> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06.02.07 08:53 >>> >On Monday 05 February 2007 23:50, Siddha, Suresh B wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:19:59PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote: >> > o added check to restrict base address to 36 bit on i386 >> >> Why is this? It can go upto implemented physical

Re: [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

On Monday 05 February 2007 23:50, Siddha, Suresh B wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:19:59PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > > o added check to restrict base address to 36 bit on i386 > > Why is this? It can go upto implemented physical bits, right? In theory it can, but Linux doesn't support

Re: [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

"Andreas Herrmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > This is a repost of a mail sent to Richard Gooch and lkml some time > ago. Meanwhile I noticed that Richard has a new email address. And it > seems that he does not maintain the mtrr code anymore. (So how about > updating the MAINTAINERS fil

Re: [patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:19:59PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > o added check to restrict base address to 36 bit on i386 Why is this? It can go upto implemented physical bits, right? thanks, suresh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a mess

[patch] mtrr: fix issues with large addresses

Hi, This is a repost of a mail sent to Richard Gooch and lkml some time ago. Meanwhile I noticed that Richard has a new email address. And it seems that he does not maintain the mtrr code anymore. (So how about updating the MAINTAINERS file?) Here we go again -- with new recipient and a slightly