From: "Yinghai Lu" <yinghai@kernel.org>
To: "J.A. Magallón" <jamagallon@ono.com>
Cc: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Strange mtrrs in Aspire One
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 16:10:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86802c440810041610r74cdde33ld14ae3e92f54ab4e@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081005010210.5a0835ff@werewolf.home>
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 4:02 PM, J.A. Magallón <jamagallon@ono.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 14:54:24 -0700, "Yinghai Lu" <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 6:22 AM, J.A. Magallón <jamagallon@ono.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:05:51 -0700, "Yinghai Lu" <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:57 PM, J.A. Magallón <jamagallon@ono.com> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi all...
>> >>> >
>> >>> > My aspire one is giving some strange MTRR settings with rc7-git5 (and
>> >>> > prevous kernels, but that is what I run now...):
>> >>> >
>> >>> > one:~> cat /proc/mtrr
>> >>> > reg00: base=0xfffe0000 (4095MB), size= 128KB: write-protect, count=1
>> >>> > reg01: base=0xfffc0000 (4095MB), size= 128KB: uncachable, count=1
>> >>>
>> >>> could make mtrr_cleanup to support 128K gran_size
>> >>>
>> >>> > reg02: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
>> >>> > reg03: base=0x10000000 ( 256MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
>> >>> > reg04: base=0x1f800000 ( 504MB), size= 8MB: uncachable, count=1
>> >>> > reg05: base=0x1f600000 ( 502MB), size= 2MB: uncachable, count=1
>> >>> > reg06: base=0x1f500000 ( 501MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1
>> >>>
>> >>> > reg07: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size= 128KB: uncachable, count=1
>> >>> ..
>> >>> > BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009fc00 (usable)
>> >>>
>> >>> last entry is really sick...
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I have applied the patches you have posted in other threads, and this
>> >> give a very strange result. The mtrr cleanup did nothing, and I had to put
>> >> some printk's all around.
>> >
>> > will have one patch to assume the [0, 1M) to be coverred by var mtrrs.
>> >
>>
>> please check other three patches.
>>
>> [PATCH 1/3] x86: mtrr_cleanup: print out correct type
>> [PATCH 2/3] x86: mtrr_cleanup: first 1M should be coverred in var mtrrs
>> [PATCH 3/3] x86: mtrr_cleanup: treat WRPROT as UNCACHEABLE
>>
>
> Thanks, will try.
>
>> you may need to boot with "mtrr_gran_size=64k mtrr_chunk_size=64k"
>>
>
> This makes me think about a question.
> In the dual xeon box, the 'cleanup' ends with this setup:
>
> werewolf:~> cat /proc/mtrr
> reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
> reg01: base=0x40000000 (1024MB), size= 512MB: write-back, count=1
> reg02: base=0x60000000 (1536MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
> reg03: base=0x70000000 (1792MB), size= 128MB: write-back, count=1
> reg04: base=0x78000000 (1920MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1
> reg05: base=0x7c000000 (1984MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1
> reg06: base=0x7ff00000 (2047MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1
>
> Ths options with 0 me loose were:
>
> gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G
> ...
> gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G
> ...
> gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G
> ...
> gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G
> ...
> gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G
> gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G
> ...
> Found optimal setting for mtrr clean up
> gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose RAM: 0G
>
> Why did it choose that using 7 registers ? Should'n it get that with the
> smallest number of used registers, and from those the bigger gran_size ?
> If the purpose is to leave space for more mtrrs (from X or other...).
> In short, what is the purpose of having this:
>
> reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
> reg01: base=0x40000000 (1024MB), size= 512MB: write-back, count=1
> reg02: base=0x60000000 (1536MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
> reg03: base=0x70000000 (1792MB), size= 128MB: write-back, count=1
> reg04: base=0x78000000 (1920MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1
> reg05: base=0x7c000000 (1984MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1
> reg06: base=0x7ff00000 (2047MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1
>
> instead of this:
>
> reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
> reg01: base=0x7ff00000 (2047MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1
>
> If both set a hole, not a set of valid zones without holes ?
>
> ??
please do check with tip/master.
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/readme.txt
please boot with mtrr_cleanup_debug to find out right mtrr_gran_size
and mtrr_chunk_size...
YH
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-04 23:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-29 23:57 Strange mtrrs in Aspire One J.A. Magallón
2008-09-30 1:05 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-10-04 13:22 ` J.A. Magallón
2008-10-04 17:55 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-10-04 21:54 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-10-04 23:02 ` J.A. Magallón
2008-10-04 23:10 ` Yinghai Lu [this message]
2008-10-06 0:39 ` J.A. Magallón
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=86802c440810041610r74cdde33ld14ae3e92f54ab4e@mail.gmail.com \
--to=yinghai@kernel.org \
--cc=jamagallon@ono.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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