lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [BUG?] mtrr sanitizer fails on Latitude E6230
From
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yinghai Lu writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I recently got a Dell Latitude E6230 (Ivy Bridge i7-3540M) and noticed that
> > > the mtrr sanitizer failed on it:
> > >
> > > === snip ===
> > > Linux version 3.12.0 (mikpe@barley) (gcc version 4.8.3 20131017 (prerelease) (GCC) ) #1 SMP Wed Nov 6 09:46:02 CET 2013
> > > Command line: ro root=LABEL=/ resume=/dev/sda2 rd_NO_LUKS rd_NO_LVM rd_NO_MD rd_NO_DM LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 KEYTABLE=sv-latin1
> > ...
> > gran_size: 8M chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 9 lose cover RAM: 6M
> > ...
> > > mtrr_cleanup: can not find optimal value
> > > please specify mtrr_gran_size/mtrr_chunk_size
> > > === snip ===
> > >
> > > For now I'm disabling the mtrr sanitizer in this machine's kernel.
> >
> > Can you try to boot with "mtrr_gran_size=8m mtrr_chunk_size=64m" ?
>
> That results in:
>
> reg 0, base: 0GB, range: 8GB, type WB
> reg 1, base: 8GB, range: 512MB, type WB
> reg 2, base: 3584MB, range: 512MB, type UC
> reg 3, base: 3520MB, range: 64MB, type UC
> reg 4, base: 3512MB, range: 8MB, type UC
> reg 5, base: 8688MB, range: 16MB, type UC
> reg 6, base: 8680MB, range: 8MB, type UC
> reg 7, base: 8678MB, range: 2MB, type UC
> total RAM covered: 8094M
> gran_size: 8M chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 9 lose cover RAM: 6M
> New variable MTRRs
> reg 0, base: 0GB, range: 2GB, type WB
> reg 1, base: 2GB, range: 1GB, type WB
> reg 2, base: 3GB, range: 256MB, type WB
> reg 3, base: 3328MB, range: 128MB, type WB
> reg 4, base: 3456MB, range: 64MB, type WB
> reg 5, base: 3512MB, range: 8MB, type UC
> reg 6, base: 4GB, range: 4GB, type WB
> reg 7, base: 8GB, range: 512MB, type WB
> reg 8, base: 8672MB, range: 32MB, type UC
> e820: update [mem 0xdb800000-0xffffffff] usable ==> reserved
> e820: update [mem 0x21e000000-0x21e5fffff] usable ==> reserved
...
>> modified: [mem 0x000000021e000000-0x000000021e5fffff] reserved

that is right, it throw 6M away.

Did you notice any slowness or speeding for x window?

What does /proc/mtrr look like after xwindow is started?

Thanks

Yinghai


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-07 21:21    [W:0.044 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site