Re: detecting > 64M on x86

Mark Hemment (markhe@nextd.demon.co.uk)
Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:31:26 +0000 (GMT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Mark Umbach: "my kernel won't compile (like usual)"
Previous message: jamesh: "Re: NT vulnerable to attack on CPU"
Maybe in reply to: Larry M. Augustin: "detecting > 64M on x86"
Next in thread: Larry M. Augustin: "Re: detecting > 64M on x86"

On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Kimon Berlin wrote:
> "Larry M. Augustin" <lma@varesearch.com> wrote:
> > For example, the int 15h ah=c7 get memory map call returns a 42 byte
> > structure that includes how much memory is installed above and below
> > the 16M boundary.
> Ralf Brown's interrupt list says this is a PS/2 function
> "Standard" functions are int 15h, ax=e801h and int 15h, ax=e820h. e820h is
> closest to c7h, it returns a detailed memory map, but it has to be called
> several times, this would bloat setup.S . I think e801h would be enough
> for our purposes,
>
> Would there be a point in reporting the amount of cachable memory? I don't know
> if any other part of the kernel is designed to have a use for that (i.e. "fast
> pages" and "slow pages").

The memory sub-system isn't designed for fast/slow pages, but having the
information available would be v. useful.

Next message: Mark Umbach: "my kernel won't compile (like usual)"
Previous message: jamesh: "Re: NT vulnerable to attack on CPU"
Maybe in reply to: Larry M. Augustin: "detecting > 64M on x86"
Next in thread: Larry M. Augustin: "Re: detecting > 64M on x86"