Unable to address 1GB RAM in 2.4.19 or later

Unable to address 1GB RAM in 2.4.19 or later

[Jason Walker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1829 bytes --]

I have run into an issue where I cannot address all of my 1GB of RAM. 2.4.18
was the last kernel that can address all 1GB. All kernels since then appear to
only be able to address 16mb of ram if I use the 4GB himem kernel option. Here
is a snip of the dmesg on the working 2.4.18 and broken 2.4.23 kernels:


==> dmesg-2.4.18-4GB <==
Linux version 2.4.18-4GB (root@mcp) (gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian
prerelease)) #3 SMP Mon Apr 7 05:29:01 EDT 2003
BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
 BIOS-88: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009f000 (usable)
 BIOS-88: 0000000000100000 - 0000000001000000 (usable)
128MB HIGHMEM available.
found SMP MP-table at 000f4ff0
hm, page 000f4000 reserved twice.
hm, page 000f5000 reserved twice.
hm, page 000fb000 reserved twice.
hm, page 000fc000 reserved twice.

==> dmesg-2.4.23-4GB <==
Linux version 2.4.23-4GB (root@mcp) (gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian
prerelease)) #1 SMP Wed Dec 3 10:28:26 EST 2003
BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
 BIOS-88: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009f000 (usable)
 BIOS-88: 0000000000100000 - 0000000001000000 (usable)
user-defined physical RAM map:
 user: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009f000 (usable)
 user: 0000000000100000 - 0000000001000000 (usable)
0MB HIGHMEM available.
16MB LOWMEM available.
found SMP MP-table at 000f4ff0

What concerns me about these is that even in the 2.4.18 kernel it only reports
128MB HIGHMEM in the dmesg, even though it does see all 1GB when booted (free
confirms this). I am thinking 2.4.18 isnt detecting something properly either,
but is only a problem in 2.4.19 and later.
Both are SMP kernels. The hardware is a Compaq Proliant 5000R, quad pentium pro
200mhz (256k cache models).
Any thoughts on this? Is there any other information needed to address this
issue? Please let me know what I can do to assist in correcting this bug.


[-- Attachment #2: dmesg-2.4.18-4GB --]
[-- Type: application/x-unknown, Size: 10591 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: dmesg-2.4.23-4GB --]
[-- Type: application/x-unknown, Size: 8976 bytes --]

Re: Unable to address 1GB RAM in 2.4.19 or later

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:10:31PM -0500, Jason Walker wrote:
> I have run into an issue where I cannot address all of my 1GB of RAM. 2.4.18
> was the last kernel that can address all 1GB. All kernels since then appear to
> only be able to address 16mb of ram if I use the 4GB himem kernel option. Here
> is a snip of the dmesg on the working 2.4.18 and broken 2.4.23 kernels:

Your BIOS' e820 is bust.


-- wli

Re: Unable to address 1GB RAM in 2.4.19 or later

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jason Walker wrote:

> I have run into an issue where I cannot address all of my 1GB of RAM. 2.4.18
> was the last kernel that can address all 1GB. All kernels since then appear to
> only be able to address 16mb of ram if I use the 4GB himem kernel option. Here
> is a snip of the dmesg on the working 2.4.18 and broken 2.4.23 kernels:
>
> ==> dmesg-2.4.18-4GB <==
> Linux version 2.4.18-4GB (root@mcp) (gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian
> prerelease)) #3 SMP Mon Apr 7 05:29:01 EDT 2003
> BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
>  BIOS-88: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009f000 (usable)
>  BIOS-88: 0000000000100000 - 0000000001000000 (usable)
> 128MB HIGHMEM available.
> found SMP MP-table at 000f4ff0
> hm, page 000f4000 reserved twice.
> hm, page 000f5000 reserved twice.
> hm, page 000fb000 reserved twice.
> hm, page 000fc000 reserved twice.
>
> ==> dmesg-2.4.23-4GB <==
> Linux version 2.4.23-4GB (root@mcp) (gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian
> prerelease)) #1 SMP Wed Dec 3 10:28:26 EST 2003
> BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
>  BIOS-88: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009f000 (usable)
>  BIOS-88: 0000000000100000 - 0000000001000000 (usable)
> user-defined physical RAM map:
>  user: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009f000 (usable)
>  user: 0000000000100000 - 0000000001000000 (usable)
> 0MB HIGHMEM available.
> 16MB LOWMEM available.
> found SMP MP-table at 000f4ff0
>
> What concerns me about these is that even in the 2.4.18 kernel it only reports
> 128MB HIGHMEM in the dmesg, even though it does see all 1GB when booted (free
> confirms this). I am thinking 2.4.18 isnt detecting something properly either,
> but is only a problem in 2.4.19 and later.

You have 896M lowmem + 128M highmem.

> Both are SMP kernels. The hardware is a Compaq Proliant 5000R, quad pentium pro
> 200mhz (256k cache models).
> Any thoughts on this? Is there any other information needed to address this
> issue? Please let me know what I can do to assist in correcting this bug.

You are using mem= what happens without it? I wonder if mem= is broken
again.

Re: Unable to address 1GB RAM in 2.4.19 or later

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jason Walker wrote:
>> Both are SMP kernels. The hardware is a Compaq Proliant 5000R, quad pentium pro
>> 200mhz (256k cache models).
>> Any thoughts on this? Is there any other information needed to address this
>> issue? Please let me know what I can do to assist in correcting this bug.

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:21:14PM -0500, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> You are using mem= what happens without it? I wonder if mem= is broken
> again.

Both of the BIOS-88 tables match; for some reason 2.4.18 ignored the
fact it was only reporting 16MB. It should see an e820...


-- wli

Re: Unable to address 1GB RAM in 2.4.19 or later

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jason Walker wrote:
> >> Both are SMP kernels. The hardware is a Compaq Proliant 5000R, quad pentium pro
> >> 200mhz (256k cache models).
> >> Any thoughts on this? Is there any other information needed to address this
> >> issue? Please let me know what I can do to assist in correcting this bug.
>
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:21:14PM -0500, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> > You are using mem= what happens without it? I wonder if mem= is broken
> > again.
>
> Both of the BIOS-88 tables match; for some reason 2.4.18 ignored the
> fact it was only reporting 16MB. It should see an e820...

I think his box may be too old for an e820 and BIOS-88 only does 0-64Mb
or so.