Re: Fancy memory detection patch (2.2.10/ 2.3.6)

Tom Leete (tleete@access.mountain.net)
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 05:34:40 -0400


-----Original Message-----
From: david parsons <orc@pell.chi.il.us>
>I've tweaked my memory detection patch to deal with memory holes
>(if they're returned to the system by the e820 memory call), but
>the 2.2.x and 2.3.x patches suffer from the big problem that I
>don't use those kernels in production yet. I've tried the boot
>test, and both of these kernels will either (a) boot up to the

...

>If they don't make systems explode, turn purple, or some similar
>antisocial behavior, I'll submit them for inclusion in the main
>kernel.

...

>There's one little unrelated makefile patch in here; it's part
>of my "not everything is a GNU" patches I've had to apply to
>get kernels to actually compile on Mastodon (which uses BSD
>programs, not GNU ones.)

worked on my gnu system

>To put additional room into the empty_zero_block, I've dropped
>a little trampoline into setup.S -- the initial jump now jumps
>to a CALL instruction, which then pushes junk onto the stack
>and leaps over a 1k scratch area I've put before setup.S starts
>up. I don't think this will cause any problems, but will it
>make the branch predictor in modern ia32 processors get horribly
>confused?

I tried this patch on a Cx586, AMI BIOS(1994), kernel 2.2.10. The good news
is that it compiled and booted without a hitch. The bad news is I cant
report on it's effectiveness; there's no e820 call in this BIOS. No ill
effects are showing from the patch. /proc/sys/vm/* all report report good
numbers, both with and without the BIOS memory hole enabled.

I'll run this a few days, but will only follow up if I hear loud noises or
see purple smoke.

Tom

--We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/