From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 3 22:50:58 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E51E106566B for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 22:50:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177CD8FC12 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 22:50:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh.carroll@gmail.com) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so1688131yxb.13 for ; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:50:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=nbrasuIIsihUL/rcW4DV3Kqcjfzo+6iGXI5J6IglbCc=; b=hMKH4z1d8TiPaFDQifDE1ea1i3KH9ImjokaVywPsJgCbZxKPVfWyS36OUXNJ933C/k z6YQ1Wq9ehY6MrGJOgrX34IWdL0dorMkOKRZzzgdmNMR17pAqSB8JNGmZyLuuwIkpzJC TU4EcSii3PCC9lYbM9yncPjm+FkcJIYB+dnfs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:references; b=ZCmDLELtP7ErhQms4MgFxphm35AOLzs1JcNJqlZQeE9AJeD2uBG7u4Wg0RzFW0uHR4 1UH245Jn1XjfBKSazHq+hedpqEHzx8pJ2Fdn0IsUaqLjWu+Panu/Y7RrnvKTiHgZtPKf Bgb9fmXGh7jc2yyPJL9FR868B6k148PcMkcMk= Received: by 10.151.47.7 with SMTP id z7mr13249457ybj.111.1220482257375; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.140.14 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8cb6106e0809031550o4960a4fanaf2ef5fe9130fc5b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:50:57 -0400 From: "Josh Carroll" To: "Scott Long" In-Reply-To: <48BF1218.6000504@samsco.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080903034943.GD11548@cicely7.cicely.de> <20080903204759.GA4898@walton.maths.tcd.ie> <8cb6106e0809031446i3e2a47dar385125ecfb0275dc@mail.gmail.com> <48BF1218.6000504@samsco.org> Cc: David Malone , Bernd Walter , ticso@cicely.de, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MTRR fixup? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: josh.carroll@gmail.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:50:58 -0000 > Actually, it likely doesn't. Ok, something else then. My second guess (and what I thought prior to seeing this mail thread) was that it was perhaps address space reserved for the kernel? Off topic for this thread I suppose, I can ask elsewhere. > All systems reserve the top 256MB of the address space for PCI > memory and chipset registers. Modern systems have started > reserving even more than that for other new PCI functionality. > Note that this is address space, not RAM. The RAM is likely > being remapped to some place above the 4GB barrier. That makes sense. But is there a way to correlate where the physical memory is mapped with the memory ranges listed in memcontrol list output then? Or how would someone check if they are, in fact, affected by this sort of BIOS bug? >> I'll have to play with memcontrol to see if I can set those two large >> ranges as cacheable. So this is a BIOS bug? The board in question is >> an Asus P5K-E with BIOS revision 1102, which uses an Intel P35 >> chipset. > > At best, nothing will happen. But more likely, your box won't boot. So I'd be stepping on/trashing memory ranges used for PCI device mappings? I guess I probably just started a ticking time bomb then, huh? :) Thanks, Josh