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

Memory recognition problem / large mem



ok, first the problem:
my computer has 1024 M of RAM installed.
/proc/meminfo reports:

        total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  923058176 460623872 462434304        0 33697792 172601344
Swap: 3174903808        0 3174903808
MemTotal:       901424 kB
...

I'm running woody, with the 2.4.16-k7 kernel

Redhat 7.1, with a 2.4.2-2 kernel had no problem detecting all my mem.
neither did memtest86 (no errors on the full test suite)

using lilo to pass 'mem=1024M' or 'mem=0x40000000' does not change the
mem reported.  same for passing those args at the lilo prompt.

however, passing 'mem=512M' does drop the mem reported, so I know the
kernel is seeing the arguments.

according to 'man bootparam'

>>
'mem=...'  <snip>					If  you
       have  more  than  64MB  of RAM installed, you can use this
       boot arg to tell Linux how  much  memory  you  have.   The
       value  is  in  decimal or hexadecimal (prefix 0x), and the
       suffixes `k' (times 1024) or `M' (times  1048576)  can  be
       used.   Here  is a quote from Linus on usage of the `mem='
       parameter.

       ``The kernel will accept any `mem=xx' parameter  you  give
       it, and if it turns out that you lied to it, it will crash
       horribly sooner or later.   The  parameter  indicates  the
       highest  addressable RAM address, so `mem=0x1000000' means
       you have 16MB of memory, for example.  For a 96MB  machine
       this would be `mem=0x6000000'.
<<

has this been changed?
any other ideas how I can get it to admit that I have more mem?
-- 
Noah Massey  | fingerprint : 90AD 7AAB 0768 46AF 8C52 0695 03A2 C74D E1ED C2BF
   It is better to sleep on what you intend doing than to
   stay awake over what you've done.
Attached is a digital signature which can be used to authenticate this email.
For details consult www.gnupg.org or www.pgpi.org

Attachment: pgpgpGgaDYOVK.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: