* PAE causing failure to run various executables.
@ 2005-10-05 20:40 Dave Jones
2005-10-05 21:31 ` avi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dave Jones @ 2005-10-05 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
A fedora user recently filed a puzzling bug at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169741
The system being reported has exactly 4GB, and its E820
tables seem to concur that there is in fact 4GB.
When run in non-PAE mode, it triggers the
"Warning only 4GB will be used. Use a PAE enabled kernel."
message, which is odd, but the system does actually run.
When run in PAE mode, it seems to lose its mind, and it
fails to run various binaries.
Booting with mem=4G causes the machine to boot fine
(though for some reason, it finds only 3042M of RAM).
The reporter of this bug has tested on 2.6.14-rc3-git4, and found the
same issue exists as he saw on the original FC3 kernel, thus ruling out
any Fedora-specific patches.
Anyone have any ideas what's wrong here?
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: PAE causing failure to run various executables.
2005-10-05 20:40 Dave Jones
@ 2005-10-05 21:31 ` avi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: avi @ 2005-10-05 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Jones; +Cc: linux-kernel
Dave Jones wrote:
>A fedora user recently filed a puzzling bug at
>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169741
>
>The system being reported has exactly 4GB, and its E820
>tables seem to concur that there is in fact 4GB.
>
>When run in non-PAE mode, it triggers the
>"Warning only 4GB will be used. Use a PAE enabled kernel."
>message, which is odd, but the system does actually run.
>
>
>
if there's a hole in the physical address space (for pci devices), you
would need more than 32 bits to address 4GB RAM.
>When run in PAE mode, it seems to lose its mind, and it
>fails to run various binaries.
>
>Booting with mem=4G causes the machine to boot fine
>(though for some reason, it finds only 3042M of RAM).
>
>
>
looks like a 1GB hole.
>The reporter of this bug has tested on 2.6.14-rc3-git4, and found the
>same issue exists as he saw on the original FC3 kernel, thus ruling out
>any Fedora-specific patches.
>
>Anyone have any ideas what's wrong here?
>
>
>
maybe the last 1GB is bad. since it can only be accessed by pae, only
the pae kernel fails.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: PAE causing failure to run various executables.
@ 2005-10-06 12:36 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2005-10-06 13:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pallipadi, Venkatesh @ 2005-10-06 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: avi, Dave Jones; +Cc: linux-kernel
>-----Original Message-----
>From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
>[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of avi
>Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:32 PM
>To: Dave Jones
>Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: PAE causing failure to run various executables.
>
>Dave Jones wrote:
>
>>A fedora user recently filed a puzzling bug at
>>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169741
>>
>>The system being reported has exactly 4GB, and its E820
>>tables seem to concur that there is in fact 4GB.
>>
>>When run in non-PAE mode, it triggers the
>>"Warning only 4GB will be used. Use a PAE enabled kernel."
>>message, which is odd, but the system does actually run.
>>
>>When run in PAE mode, it seems to lose its mind, and it
>>fails to run various binaries.
>>
>>Booting with mem=4G causes the machine to boot fine
>>(though for some reason, it finds only 3042M of RAM).
>>
>>
>>
>looks like a 1GB hole.
Yes. E820 map here indeed shows 1GB of memory at higher than 32 bits
range.
>
>>The reporter of this bug has tested on 2.6.14-rc3-git4, and found the
>>same issue exists as he saw on the original FC3 kernel, thus
>ruling out
>>any Fedora-specific patches.
>>
>>Anyone have any ideas what's wrong here?
>>
>>
>>
>maybe the last 1GB is bad. since it can only be accessed by pae, only
>the pae kernel fails.
>
Another possible reason can be NX(Execute Disable) support, which is
active only on a PAE kernel. Trying "noexec=off" on a PAE kernel can be
tried here.
Thanks,
Venki
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: PAE causing failure to run various executables.
2005-10-06 12:36 PAE causing failure to run various executables Pallipadi, Venkatesh
@ 2005-10-06 13:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-10-06 14:26 ` Avi Kivity
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2005-10-06 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pallipadi, Venkatesh; +Cc: avi, Dave Jones, linux-kernel
>
> Another possible reason can be NX(Execute Disable) support, which is
> active only on a PAE kernel. Trying "noexec=off" on a PAE kernel can be
> tried here.
if that were the case them mem=4096M wouldn't solve the hangs..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: PAE causing failure to run various executables.
2005-10-06 13:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
@ 2005-10-06 14:26 ` Avi Kivity
2005-10-06 14:28 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Avi Kivity @ 2005-10-06 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arjan van de Ven; +Cc: Pallipadi, Venkatesh, Dave Jones, linux-kernel
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>Another possible reason can be NX(Execute Disable) support, which is
>>active only on a PAE kernel. Trying "noexec=off" on a PAE kernel can be
>>tried here.
>>
>>
>
>if that were the case them mem=4096M wouldn't solve the hangs..
>
>
>
then bad memory is more likely. does mem= limit memory size to 4096MB,
or does it limit the maximum physical address?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: PAE causing failure to run various executables.
2005-10-06 14:26 ` Avi Kivity
@ 2005-10-06 14:28 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2005-10-06 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: Pallipadi, Venkatesh, Dave Jones, linux-kernel
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 17:26 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> >>Another possible reason can be NX(Execute Disable) support, which is
> >>active only on a PAE kernel. Trying "noexec=off" on a PAE kernel can be
> >>tried here.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >if that were the case them mem=4096M wouldn't solve the hangs..
> >
> >
> >
> then bad memory is more likely. does mem= limit memory size to 4096MB,
> or does it limit the maximum physical address?
highest phys address
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-10-06 14:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-10-06 12:36 PAE causing failure to run various executables Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2005-10-06 13:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-10-06 14:26 ` Avi Kivity
2005-10-06 14:28 ` Arjan van de Ven
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-10-05 20:40 Dave Jones
2005-10-05 21:31 ` avi
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox