From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 31 04:30:44 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279F816A4CE; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:30:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C2243D46; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:30:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.21] (rat.samsco.home [192.168.254.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2V4YRjo014442; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:34:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <424B7C74.4060203@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:28:36 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050321 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" References: <20050330222439.GU84137@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20050330223546.GA4705@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20050330224445.GW84137@wantadilla.lemis.com> <200503311032.33718.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20050331015429.GH6252@wantadilla.lemis.com> <657eb6604d1e00368d77f047a8b5e074@FreeBSD.org> <20050331040811.GL6252@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20050331040811.GL6252@wantadilla.lemis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org cc: FreeBSD-amd64@freebsd.org cc: John Baldwin Subject: Re: Problems with AMD64 and 8 GB RAM? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:30:44 -0000 Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Wednesday, 30 March 2005 at 23:01:03 -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > >>On Mar 30, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> >>>>lapic0: LINT1 trigger: edge >>>>lapic0: LINT1 polarity: high >>>>lapic1: Routing NMI -> LINT1 >>>>lapic1: LINT1 trigger: edge >>>>lapic1: LINT1 polarity: high >>>>-ioapic0 irqs 0-23 on motherboard >>>>+ioapic0 irqs 0-23 on motherboard >>>>cpu0 BSP: >>>> ID: 0x00000000 VER: 0x00040010 LDR: 0x01000000 DFR: 0x0fffffff >>>> lint0: 0x00010700 lint1: 0x00000400 TPR: 0x00000000 SVR: 0x000001ff >> >>This shows that in the - case the APIC is broken somehow (0.0 isn't a >>valid I/O APIC version). > > > You mean the + case, I suppose. Yes, that's what I suspected. > > >>It would seem that the system has mapped RAM over top of the I/O >>APIC perhaps? > > > That's what I suspected too, but imp doesn't think so. > I'd be more inclined to believe that there is an erroneous mapping by the OS, not that things are fundamentally broken in hardware. Your SMAP table shows everything correctly. It's becoming hard to break through your pre-concieved notions here and explain how things actually work. > >>It would be interesting to see the contents of your MADT to see if >>it's trying to use a 64-bit PA for your APIC. > > > Any suggestions about how to do so? > man acpidump