From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: Bob Zhang <zhanglinbao@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
hayfeng Lee <omycle@gmail.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Bob Zhang <2004.zhang@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: x86_64 virtual memory map
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:38:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110727153808.GA16180@tassilo.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKdQVUZgSJi4z1BnwnKiOjX7L2dhOyMxA018sS-MtqOQixSKeg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:13:19PM +0800, Bob Zhang wrote:
> 2011/7/27 Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>:
> >> and in the end of mm.txt , it says :
> >> >>Current X86-64 implementations only support 40 bits of address space,
> >> >> 27but we support up to 46 bits. This expands into MBZ space in the
> >> >>page tables.
> >> so this 40bit(1TB) is responding to virtual memory map(1TB) ?
> >
> > The 1TB limit was dropped a long time ago.
> > Your googling found an old file.
>
> I am not googling this , I get this file from lxr . I get that file
> from kernel v3.0 again .
> http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.0/Documentation/x86/x86_64/mm.txt
> it still said 1TB limit, if this number is really obsolete , it seems
> that related people should update it to correct number.thanks.
Ah that virtual memory map just revers to a specific kernel data structure,
it's not a limit you need to be concerned about.
The max user mapping is 128TB, the direct mapping (physical limit)
64TB at the moment.
>
> >
> >> 3, if I installed 64TB physical memory (RAM) , but linux kernel only
> >
> > What system is that out of curiosity? Are you sure it's not
> > a cluster?
> This system is HP's latest Proliant machine , DL980G7 .
> I have verified with firmware guys , they have tested sles11sp1 on
> DL980G7 ,2TB ,4TB ,they tested successfully. not BIOS problem. it
> seems that customer's configuration may has some issues. we don't
> think this is linux kernel issue again. thanks for help.
I don't think 64TB are really supported by this machine.
Xeon E7-7xxx has a limit of 16TB physical address space.
The HP web site says it's capable of 4TB.
>
> >
> >> support 1TB address space , what should I do next ?
> > There's no known 1TB limit currently.
> so as you said below ,it should be 64TB, but no one test with 64TB really.
>
> > However at least for Intel Xeons there is no CPU which supports
> > more than 16TB physical address space.
> This information is very important, I will check System spec for details.
> which spec can get this information ? x86_64 ,which spec ?
It's probably somewhere in the datasheet, or when you boot the system
grep "address sizes" /proc/cpuinfo
reports the limits reported by the CPU.
>
>
>
> >
> > Are you sure you have your units correct?
> >
> hoho , I am not richer , I don't have 64TB installed, I just supposed that.
> in fact, my DL980G7 just have 2 TB installed , but linux kernel
> recognized only 992GB. as I said above , firmware guys said they have
> tested 4TB on DL980G7 with sles11sp1 , so we are investigating why our
> environment will happen this issue . wait for future reply.
As someone earlier suggested check the beginning of the kernel log
for the e820 map. This tells how much memory the BIOS reported
to the OS.
> so I basicly understand what you mean , you mean intel Xeon just
> support 16TB , linux kernel should have no issue to support this 16TB
> ?
I don't know if especially 16TB has been tested. At least there's
no theoretical limit that should prevent it.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-27 15:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-25 2:20 x86_64 virtual memory map hayfeng Lee
2010-03-26 4:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-07-25 10:13 ` Bob Zhang
2011-07-25 10:17 ` Bob Zhang
2011-07-25 10:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-07-26 8:43 ` Bob Zhang
2011-07-26 19:26 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-07-26 19:49 ` Andi Kleen
2011-07-27 7:13 ` Bob Zhang
2011-07-27 15:38 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2011-08-19 15:13 ` Bob Zhang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110727153808.GA16180@tassilo.jf.intel.com \
--to=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=2004.zhang@gmail.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=omycle@gmail.com \
--cc=zhanglinbao@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox