From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 30 11:01:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDB116A4CE for ; Sun, 30 May 2004 11:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0789A43D4C for ; Sun, 30 May 2004 11:01:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from freebsd.org (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.0.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4UI8cxH099301; Sun, 30 May 2004 12:08:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <40BA217B.50209@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 12:01:31 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Don Bowman References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: "'current@freebsd.org'" Subject: Re: too many holes in address space, memory ignored X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:01:55 -0000 Don Bowman wrote: > On my 4GB system with PAE disabled, i'm getting these > two messages out on boot: > 262144K of memory above 4GB ignored > Too many holes in the physical address space, giving up > > I'm assuming the first one is due to the address > space needing locations for memory mapped io like > PCI, so some ram is wasted. Actually, it's the opposite. The northbridge is remapping the memory that is normally hidden by the PCI window so that it doesn't get wasted. > The second... this comes from sys/i386/i386/machdep.c > Is there any reason i wouldn't just increase > 'vm_paddr_t phys_avail[10];' to a number > 10? > (and/or increase PHYSMAP_SIZE?) > Can't comment on the safety of that, other than to wonder if you have a the BIOS set to shadow a bunch of <1MB segments. Scott