From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757577AbYB1Jqr (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:46:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754841AbYB1Jqg (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:46:36 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:40223 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754160AbYB1Jqf (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:46:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:46:13 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Ian Campbell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Mark McLoughlin , Alexander van Heukelum Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/xen: Disable DMI parsing in Xen kernel. Message-ID: <20080228094613.GC2987@elte.hu> References: <1204187174-27143-1-git-send-email-ijc@hellion.org.uk> <1204187174-27143-2-git-send-email-ijc@hellion.org.uk> <1204191082.5446.13.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1204191082.5446.13.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ian Campbell wrote: > Actually scratch this patchset -- its not sufficient. For example > ddcprobe in userspace causes the exact same issue vs 0xa0000. > > Looks like the only sane solution will be to mark regions between > 640K-1M reserved early on in boot. and as luck has it, such a patch from Alexander van Heukelum has been put into x86.git#testing just yesterday. So ... could you try x86.git#testing - does it work out of box? Is the reservation early enough to prevent pagetables be allocated in weird places? [or am i missing something - this is about the guest kernel reserving th 640k..1M area, not the host kernel - right?] Ingo