Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?
- From: Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 13:40:24 -0700
On Friday, May 02, 2008 12:37 pm Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Frans Pop [mailto:elendil@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 12:22 PM
To: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Pallipadi, Venkatesh; Ingo Molnar
Subject: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?
With X86_PAT enabled, when X is started I get about 40 lines
(with varying
addresses) like:
kernel: Xorg:3358 /dev/mem expected mapping type write-back for
807bf000-81000000, got uncached-minus
These messages? They're coming from the kernel it looks like, from the
map_devmem routine in pat.c. I'm not sure they're accurate though; for PCI
regions /dev/mem is *supposed* to map with UC- and not WB, so maybe this
function needs to be updated?
And when X exits I get a bunch of lines like:
kernel: Xorg:3349 freeing invalid memtype 80020000-8002a000
I also noticed artifacts (a band of about 2 cm high across the
screen) after
X goes to black but before the switch to VT1.
This is just a transient issue during VT switch or server exit though, right?
X functionality isn't affected, and your VTs work fine? If so, it might not
be a PAT issue but just a different memory layout or something (and therefore
it would really just be a cosmetic bug in the X driver).
I really think PAT should be on by default; if you're running into real
functional or performance problems we'd better get them fixed rather than
disabling PAT...
Thanks,
Jesse
--
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?
- From: Frans Pop
- RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?
- From: Pallipadi, Venkatesh
- Re: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?
- References:
- [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?
- From: Frans Pop
- RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?
- From: Pallipadi, Venkatesh
- [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?
- Prev by Date: Re: 'global' rq->clock (was Re: Horrendous Audio Stutter - current git)
- Next by Date: Re: RFC: make MAINTAINERS email addresses easier to copy/paste
- Previous by thread: RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?
- Next by thread: RE: [git head] Should X86_PAT really default to yes?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|