Large mmio resources and 4G+ of RAM...
rminnich at lanl.gov
Tue Jun 1 16:02:01 CEST 2004
On 1 Jun 2004, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> ron minnich <rminnich at lanl.gov> writes:
> > just FYI, making BARS live above the 32-bit limit will break every single
> > linux cluster here at LANL, and will also disable Plan 9.
> Only for the hardware where the BARs move.
guess I missed something in your writeup. Are you saying that moving all
BARs above 2^32 won't cause trouble for a 32-bit mode linux or freebsd or
plan 9 or ...
> > With BARS under the 32-bit limit, you can boot anything. With BARS above
> > that limit, you immediately limit what you can boot.
> Yes. And largely I see that as a good thing.
But do the potential users of linuxbios systems that as a good thing? I
understand the motivation, but sometimes customers (including us) do silly
things, such as run K8s in 32-bit mode (it's actually a good thing as a K8
is a better Xeon than a Xeon, at least for our programs).
As long as it is an option I don't mind however.
> > In principle, I like your BAR fix, but setting up BARS that are optimized
> > for 64-bit kernels should be a (normally disabled) option.
> For old clusters I agree that it should be normally disabled.
for our new cluster (Lightning) first boot is into 32-bit linux for now,
and will likely stay that way for a while as that system runs as 32-bits
(not my decision ...)
This change can hurt new clusters.
More information about the coreboot