Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:36:07 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel panic with ACPI enabled Message-ID: <200602081036.09619.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060208093332.GA702@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <43E7D1A2.1030008@o2.pl> <43E9A4CA.9090701@root.org> <20060208093332.GA702@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 04:33, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Tue, 2006-Feb-07 23:59:06 -0800, Nate Lawson wrote: > >John Baldwin wrote: > >>Actually, in his case I'm fairly sure MAXMEM is the problem. Several > >>people have had problems trying to use the tunable equivalent > >>(hw.physmem=3g and the like) because if the new maxmem value is greater > > > >Can we at least put a printf() in the boot sequence that says "warning: > >maxmem set and acpi enabled, this may cause problems"? This keeps > >coming up. > > Presumably this isn't a problem where hw.physmem is used to artifically > reduce the system for testing. It depends on the value you use. Some values will be ok, some will break things. The code that handles maxmem and physmem really needs to be SMAP-aware and not use memory that we know isn't really memory. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200602081036.09619.jhb>