Re: [LKML] Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 6:18 am

> So basically the BIOS is incorrectly reporting

No. Count up the the sizes of the (usuable) entries. You will see
that when you provided mem=4GB, the E820 got truncated to stop at 4GB.
Without that it goes past the 4GB mark (which is correct).

Keep in mind, 4GB doesn't mean your usuable memory stops at 4GB. The
BIOS shuffles the memory around to stick in the BIOS, ACPI, PCI hole so
that part of the usable memory is above 4GB.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems, Alan Stern, (Mon Apr 12, 9:57 am)
Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems, Daniel Mack, (Mon Apr 12, 10:15 am)
Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems, Andi Kleen, (Mon Apr 12, 10:22 am)
Re: [LKML] Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit sy ..., Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk, (Mon Apr 12, 10:52 am)
Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems, Daniel Mack, (Mon Apr 12, 10:56 am)
Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems, Daniel Mack, (Tue Apr 13, 11:22 am)
Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems, Pedro Ribeiro, (Tue Apr 13, 4:46 pm)
Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems, Daniel Mack, (Wed Apr 14, 3:09 am)
Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems, Pedro Ribeiro, (Wed Apr 14, 3:47 am)
Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems, Pedro Ribeiro, (Wed Apr 14, 4:02 am)
Re: [LKML] Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit sy ..., Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk, (Wed Apr 14, 6:18 am)