Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix page table size

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 1:09 am

* Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@Sun.COM> wrote:




thanks Yinghai, applied!

I'm wondering why this bug didnt trigger more widely. It seems to me it 
needs some serious amount of RAM to trigger this bug - correct?

btw., it would be nice to have some "lots of RAM simulation" debugging 
code which would just _fake_ a really large e820 map and would in the 
end throw away the 'fake' pages later during bootup. Perhaps tell the 
early allocator to never allocate into these fake areas [via an struct 
e820 entry flag], but all our sizing code and the boot bitmaps, etc. 
would be sized accordingly, as if we had this much RAM - and we'd 
trigger these nuances. We could put this into a new "fakemem=128GB" boot 
option and hence we could boot with fakemem=128GB on a 2GB box and could 
at least hope to be able to boot [with some serious amount of RAM wasted 
on over-sized pagetables, allocator bitmaps and mem_map[]]. Hm?

	Ingo
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] x86_64: fix page table size, Yinghai Lu, (Wed Feb 6, 9:22 pm)
[PATCH] x86_64: clean up find_e820_area, Yinghai Lu, (Wed Feb 6, 9:23 pm)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix page table size, Andi Kleen, (Thu Feb 7, 12:23 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix page table size, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Feb 7, 1:09 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64: clean up find_e820_area, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Feb 7, 1:12 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix page table size, Yinghai Lu, (Thu Feb 7, 1:36 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix page table size, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Feb 7, 1:49 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix page table size, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Feb 7, 4:54 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix page table size, Andi Kleen, (Thu Feb 7, 10:28 am)