Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:02:53 -0800 | Subject | Re: Corrupted low memory in v3.9+ | From | Olof Johansson <> |
| |
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> On 10/17/2013 11:57 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> >>> And the low memory checker never even ran before, since it had nothing >>> to check. Earlier the lower reserved region would be included in the >>> e820-reserved area if I read the code correctly, and now it's just >>> marked reserved by the memblock code. >>> >>> I guess it could be argued either way whether this is a regression or >>> not; but at the end of the day we now have systems where this warning >>> pops when it didn't use to. :( >>> >> >> I'm wondering if this is a problem with the low memory checker (the >> residual value of which I have to admit to being skeptical of) or >> something else. > > There's a chance that it's a valid trip of the low-memory checker, > i.e. that we do have a bios (or more likely smm), that stomps on that > memory -- it was never checked for in the past and definitely not > warned about. I'm not sure if that was intentional behavior or not (to > not check this area), I lack history on the topic. > >> Could you boot the box with "debug memblock=debug" and earlyprintk >> turned on and send the boot output? > > Ah, yes, I did verify that the first 64K were indeed set aside as > reserved by doing just that: > > [ 0.000000] MEMBLOCK configuration: > [ 0.000000] memory size = 0x7c750000 reserved size = 0xb05000 > [ 0.000000] memory.cnt = 0x6 > [ 0.000000] memory[0x0] [0x00000000010000-0x0000000009ffff], 0x90000 bytes > [ 0.000000] memory[0x1] [0x00000000100000-0x00000000efffff], 0xe00000 bytes > [ 0.000000] memory[0x2] [0x00000001000000-0x0000001fffffff], > 0x1f000000 bytes > [ 0.000000] memory[0x3] [0x00000020200000-0x0000003fffffff], > 0x1fe00000 bytes > [ 0.000000] memory[0x4] [0x00000040200000-0x0000007c6bffff], > 0x3c4c0000 bytes > [ 0.000000] memory[0x5] [0x00000100000000-0x000001005fffff], 0x600000 bytes > [ 0.000000] reserved.cnt = 0x2 > [ 0.000000] reserved[0x0] [0x0000000009f000-0x000000000fffff], 0x61000 bytes > [ 0.000000] reserved[0x1] [0x00000001000000-0x00000001aa3fff], > 0xaa4000 bytes > [ 0.000000] memblock_reserve: [0x00000000099000-0x0000000009f000] > reserve_real_mode+0x61/0x87 > [ 0.000000] Base memory trampoline at [ffff880000099000] 99000 size 24576 > [ 0.000000] reserving inaccessible SNB gfx pages > [ 0.000000] memblock_reserve: [0x00000000000000-0x00000000100000] > setup_arch+0xa2d/0xa41 > [...] > > Unfortunately x86 doesn't keep the memblock structures around, so > there's no way to verify after booting in debugfs, but based on the > above it should have been reserved properly.
*prod*
So, got a preference on solution for this? The warning seems harmless but still annoying to get used to ignoring false positives, etc.
Disable the low memory checker by default? Hide it behind a debug option (runtime or build time)?
-Olof
| |