[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Thinkpad 770 memory problem



Isaac MacFarlane wrote:
> Hello all. I have 288MB installed in my system and the BIOS does see it all,
> but Debian is only recoginizing 220MB.

What indicators show only 220M of memory?  This problem sounds very
unusual to me.  Also 288M seems like a lot of memory for the 770.

After boot the 'dmesg' command will report memory information.  That
information will be logged in the /var/log/dmesg file.  What
information is logged there?
Here is a sample from one of my systems:

  BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
   BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009fc00 (usable)
   BIOS-e820: 000000000009fc00 - 00000000000a0000 (reserved)
   BIOS-e820: 00000000000e0000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
   BIOS-e820: 0000000000100000 - 0000000007000000 (usable)
   BIOS-e820: 00000000fffe0000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved)
  112MB LOWMEM available.
  ...
  Memory: 106320k/114688k available (1499k kernel code, 7864k reserved, 599k data, 256k init, 0k highmem)

It would be useful to see the output from /proc/meminfo.
In particular what does MemTotal show?  In the above system with 112M
the system shows the following.

  cat /proc/meminfo

  MemTotal:       110940 kB

> I tried adding a boot parameter in GRUB using the mem command, but I
> ended up with only 64MB after booting. The command was:
> 
> mem=68M@220M
> 
> I may be misunderstanding the syntax and have things totally wrong. In fact,
> I would say that is likely considering the results. I appreciate any help
> you can provide.

You probably want to try something more like this instead:

  mem=288M

But if tell it more memory than you actually have available it will
cause the system problems.
This is documented in the linux source with various Documentation/*
files such as boot.txt, kernel-parameters.txt, and memory.txt.

A very good resource for ThinkPads is the ThinkWiki.

  http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:770

Bob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: