On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Bo Brantén wrote:
After I uppgraded the BIOS the mtrr looks like below, and now it works if I
boot with mem=4736M so I can use all memory but it still doesn't work without
the mem parameter then it will run as slow as before.
I noticed that after I uppgraded the BIOS it
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Bo Brantén wrote:
After I uppgraded the BIOS the mtrr looks like below, and now it works if I
boot with mem=4736M so I can use all memory but it still doesn't work without
the mem parameter then it will run as slow as before.
I noticed that after I uppgraded the BIOS it
On Monday, November 05, 2007 4:26 Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:32:24AM -0800, Ray Lee wrote:
> > (Don't trim cc:s.)
> >
> > On Nov 5, 2007 8:00 AM, Bo Brantén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Intel Core 2 Quad
> > >> and I noticed that the 64-bit versions was at least 10 times
>
On Monday, November 05, 2007 4:26 Andi Kleen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:32:24AM -0800, Ray Lee wrote:
(Don't trim cc:s.)
On Nov 5, 2007 8:00 AM, Bo Brantén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intel Core 2 Quad
and I noticed that the 64-bit versions was at least 10 times
slower than the
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 11:50:13AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >Just out of curiosity, what would be the problem if the MTRRs covered more
> >than the memory size ? For instance, instead of having 512 MB at 4G, why
> >not have 1G at 4G ?
>
> That's fine, *as long as* you
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 05:19:44PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Jesse Barnes (cc:d) wrote a patch to address this, I think (x86: trim
memory not covered by WB MTRRs), but as far as I can tell it hasn't
been merged yet. System is Intel, 4gb of RAM.
It
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 05:19:44PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>Jesse Barnes (cc:d) wrote a patch to address this, I think (x86: trim
> >>memory not covered by WB MTRRs), but as far as I can tell it hasn't
> >>been merged yet. System is Intel, 4gb of RAM.
> >
> >It wasn't
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 05:19:44PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Jesse Barnes (cc:d) wrote a patch to address this, I think (x86: trim
memory not covered by WB MTRRs), but as far as I can tell it hasn't
been merged yet. System is Intel, 4gb of RAM.
It wasn't merged because
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 05:19:44PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Jesse Barnes (cc:d) wrote a patch to address this, I think (x86: trim
memory not covered by WB MTRRs), but as far as I can tell it hasn't
been merged yet. System is Intel, 4gb of RAM.
It
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 11:50:13AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what would be the problem if the MTRRs covered more
than the memory size ? For instance, instead of having 512 MB at 4G, why
not have 1G at 4G ?
That's fine, *as long as* you don't
Andi Kleen wrote:
Jesse Barnes (cc:d) wrote a patch to address this, I think (x86: trim
memory not covered by WB MTRRs), but as far as I can tell it hasn't
been merged yet. System is Intel, 4gb of RAM.
It wasn't merged because it broke booting on some systems.
Besides the memory would be still
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:32:24AM -0800, Ray Lee wrote:
> (Don't trim cc:s.)
>
> On Nov 5, 2007 8:00 AM, Bo Brantén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Intel Core 2 Quad
> >> and I noticed that the 64-bit versions was at least 10 times slower than
> >> the
> >> 32-bit versions,
>
> >
> > After
Bo Brantén wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x8000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
reg02: base=0xc000 (3072MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
reg03: base=0xcf80 (3320MB),
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x8000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
reg02: base=0xc000 (3072MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
reg03: base=0xcf80 (3320MB), size= 8MB:
Bo Brantén wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
This is the output from cat /proc/mtrr
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x8000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back,
Bo Brantén wrote:
After I uppgraded the BIOS the mtrr looks like below, and now it works
if I boot with mem=4736M so I can use all memory but it still doesn't
work without the mem parameter then it will run as slow as before.
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
After I uppgraded the BIOS the mtrr looks like below, and now it works if
I boot with mem=4736M so I can use all memory but it still doesn't work
without the mem parameter then it will run as slow as before.
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
This is the output from cat /proc/mtrr
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x8000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
reg02:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:38:24PM +0100, Bo Brantén wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
>> This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
>> booting with mem=nnnM where nnn is some number smaller than your
>> actual amount of memory.
>
> Thank you for that
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:38:24PM +0100, Bo Brantén wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
booting with mem=nnnM where nnn is some number smaller than your
actual amount of memory.
Thank you for that advice, the
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
This is the output from cat /proc/mtrr
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x8000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
reg02:
After I uppgraded the BIOS the mtrr looks like below, and now it works if
I boot with mem=4736M so I can use all memory but it still doesn't work
without the mem parameter then it will run as slow as before.
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01:
Bo Brantén wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
This is the output from cat /proc/mtrr
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x8000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back,
Bo Brantén wrote:
After I uppgraded the BIOS the mtrr looks like below, and now it works
if I boot with mem=4736M so I can use all memory but it still doesn't
work without the mem parameter then it will run as slow as before.
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x8000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
reg02: base=0xc000 (3072MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
reg03: base=0xcf80 (3320MB), size= 8MB:
Bo Brantén wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x8000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
reg02: base=0xc000 (3072MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
reg03: base=0xcf80 (3320MB),
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:32:24AM -0800, Ray Lee wrote:
(Don't trim cc:s.)
On Nov 5, 2007 8:00 AM, Bo Brantén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intel Core 2 Quad
and I noticed that the 64-bit versions was at least 10 times slower than
the
32-bit versions,
After I uppgraded the BIOS
Andi Kleen wrote:
Jesse Barnes (cc:d) wrote a patch to address this, I think (x86: trim
memory not covered by WB MTRRs), but as far as I can tell it hasn't
been merged yet. System is Intel, 4gb of RAM.
It wasn't merged because it broke booting on some systems.
Besides the memory would be still
Bo Brantén wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
booting with mem=nnnM where nnn is some number smaller than your
actual amount of memory.
Thank you for that advice, the system has 4GB and if I boot with
mem=3072M
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:38:24PM +0100, Bo Brant?n wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> >This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
> >booting with mem=nnnM where nnn is some number smaller than your
> >actual amount of memory.
>
> Thank you for that
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
booting with mem=nnnM where nnn is some number smaller than your
actual amount of memory.
Thank you for that advice, the system has 4GB and if I boot with mem=3072M
it will run as
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 01:31:49PM +0100, Bo Brant?n wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I tryed different linux distributions on a computer with an Intel Core 2
> Quad and I noticed that the 64-bit versions was at least 10 times slower
> than the 32-bit versions, to boot the system took over 20 minutes in
Hello,
I tryed different linux distributions on a computer with an Intel Core 2 Quad
and I noticed that the 64-bit versions was at least 10 times slower than the
32-bit versions, to boot the system took over 20 minutes in 64-bit mode and
then even scrolling text at the command prompt felt
Hello,
I tryed different linux distributions on a computer with an Intel Core 2 Quad
and I noticed that the 64-bit versions was at least 10 times slower than the
32-bit versions, to boot the system took over 20 minutes in 64-bit mode and
then even scrolling text at the command prompt felt
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 01:31:49PM +0100, Bo Brant?n wrote:
Hello,
I tryed different linux distributions on a computer with an Intel Core 2
Quad and I noticed that the 64-bit versions was at least 10 times slower
than the 32-bit versions, to boot the system took over 20 minutes in 64-bit
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
booting with mem=nnnM where nnn is some number smaller than your
actual amount of memory.
Thank you for that advice, the system has 4GB and if I boot with mem=3072M
it will run as
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:38:24PM +0100, Bo Brant?n wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
booting with mem=nnnM where nnn is some number smaller than your
actual amount of memory.
Thank you for that advice, the
Bo Brantén wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
This is typically due to a problem with the setup of your MTRRs. Try
booting with mem=nnnM where nnn is some number smaller than your
actual amount of memory.
Thank you for that advice, the system has 4GB and if I boot with
mem=3072M
38 matches
Mail list logo
