Re: mem=16MB laptop testing
From: Pavel Machek
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 07:13:41 EST
> > (c) mem= no longer bounds the highest physical address, but rather
> > the sum of memory in e820 entries post-sanitization. This
> > means a ZONE_NORMAL with about 384KB showed up, with duly
> > perverse heuristic consequences for page_alloc.c
> I don't understand this. You mean almost all memory was in ZONE_DMA?
> "mem=" does not accurately emulate having that much memory. So a 512M box
> booted with "mem=256M" has a different amount of memory from a 256M box
> booted with no "mem=" option. It would be nice to fix that, but I've never
> looked into it.
I do not think this wants to be fixed. It should remain compatible
with 2.4.X, and if it is not that's a bug [and pretty dangerous & hard
to debug one -- if you mark something as ram which is not, you get
real bad data corruption].
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/