Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:12:54 -0800 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel panic with ACPI enabled Message-ID: <43EA42B6.4000603@root.org> In-Reply-To: <200602081036.34530.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <43E7D1A2.1030008@o2.pl> <200602071552.33235.jhb@freebsd.org> <43E9A4CA.9090701@root.org> <200602081036.34530.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 08 February 2006 02:59, Nate Lawson wrote: > >>John Baldwin wrote: >> >>>On Tuesday 07 February 2006 15:13, Donald J. O'Neill wrote: >>> >>>>Other things can affect what he's trying to do and cause him to think he >>>>has an ACPI problem. I had a bad USB mouse that was causing problems on >>>>one of my computers, in fact anything USB on that computer caused a >>>>problem with ACPI (it had to be disabled to allow the computer to >>>>boot-up) if that mouse was plugged in, until I found the mouse was bad >>>>and switched it with one that was ok. On another computer, I could only >>>>boot-up if I either disabled ACPI or had the USB mouse unplugged. After >>>>it was up, the mouse could be plugged back in and it would work, ACPI >>>>would work, but I would be left wondering about the situation. I >>>>finally decided to just use a PS-2 mouse and wait a while. That works >>>>fine, although I hate ball mice. >>> >>>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 >>>than the highest memory address we found, we just extend the last segment >>>of physical memory. However, in the case of modern machines with SMAPs, >>>this extension can result in including memory that was specifically >>>marked as unavailable (because it was in use by the BIOS to store the >>>ACPI tables) suddenly being used by the kernel. As part of this process, >>>the kernel does test writes to each page, so it would corrupt the ACPI >>>tables and eventually lead to issues such as this. >> >>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. > > > We don't know we are using ACPI when we do the maxmem and hw.physmem stuff. I was thinking this goes in the ACPI init. if (maxmem != 0) printf() -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43EA42B6.4000603>