4Gb ram not recognized

Home Forums GeeXboX on ARM SoCs 4Gb ram not recognized

This topic contains 26 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Warped Rudi 1 year, 4 months ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Author
  • #11298


    Ok, from tomorrow afternoon I will have time for try this new kernel.

    I just install new package in a fresh install?

    I will use other SD: I can’t lose my production environement.



    Yes, just burn a news sdcard using our latest snapshot then do
    opkg install http://download.geexbox.org/cuboxi/linux_imx_3.14-1.0.x-mx6-sr%2b5~27e61f6-5_armv7.opk




    This is the command I did>

    root@geexbox:~# opkg install http://download.geexbox.org/cuboxi/linux_imx_3.14-1
    Downloading http://download.geexbox.org/cuboxi/linux_imx_3.14-1.0.x-mx6-sr%2b5~27e61f6-5_armv7.opk.
    Upgrading linux from 1:imx_3.14-1.0.x-mx6-sr+5~27e61f6-4 to 1:imx_3.14-1.0.x-mx6-sr+5~27e61f6-5 on root.
    Mounting boot partition ...
    Configuring linux.B
    Unmounting boot partition ...
    Running depmod ...
    Done. Please reboot system!

    But it doesn’t work. Memory used is 231 Mb / 738 Mb (31%).
    Snapshot is the one of 30.11.2016

    This is a system check

    root@geexbox:~# cat /proc/meminfo
    MemTotal:         755944 kB
    MemFree:          297024 kB
    MemAvailable:     504608 kB
    Buffers:          127820 kB
    Cached:            94144 kB
    SwapCached:            0 kB
    Active:            68532 kB
    Inactive:         202868 kB
    Active(anon):      49772 kB
    Inactive(anon):     9504 kB
    Active(file):      18760 kB
    Inactive(file):   193364 kB
    Unevictable:           0 kB
    Mlocked:               0 kB
    SwapTotal:             0 kB
    SwapFree:              0 kB
    Dirty:                16 kB
    Writeback:             0 kB
    AnonPages:         49432 kB
    Mapped:            29512 kB
    Shmem:              9836 kB
    Slab:              16428 kB
    SReclaimable:       8292 kB
    SUnreclaim:         8136 kB
    KernelStack:        1224 kB
    PageTables:         1900 kB
    NFS_Unstable:          0 kB
    Bounce:                0 kB
    WritebackTmp:          0 kB
    CommitLimit:      377972 kB
    Committed_AS:     615284 kB
    VmallocTotal:     245760 kB
    VmallocUsed:       11948 kB
    VmallocChunk:     167796 kB

    Warped Rudi

    Could you please provide the output of the tool you used in the first post so that we can see if there is a difference between the two kernels?



    So like this:

    BusyBox v1.24.1 (2016-11-30 00:52:11 IST) built-in shell (ash)
    Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.
    root@geexbox:~# free
                 total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
    Mem:        755944     449492     306452          0     127656      83300
    -/+ buffers/cache:     238536     517408
    Swap:            0          0          0

    Warped Rudi

    Can you please post the first few – let’s say 50 – lines of ‘dmesg’?


    Warped Rudi

    Also, please try this kernel.



    Could I update this kernel with :
    => a totally fresh installation
    => in a fresh install but after already update kernel with
    opkg install http://download.geexbox.org/cuboxi/linux_imx_3.14-1.0.x-mx6-sr%2b5~27e61f6-5_armv7.opk
    as specified from Tom few post ago (post #11302) ?

    Let me know which test is better.


    Warped Rudi

    It doesn’t matter. Use what is most convenient for you.


    Warped Rudi

    The current snapshot contains this change as well. So I remove the experimental kernel package. Still untested though…



    I download lstest kernel from packages to latest snapshot.

    It appears ti working fine.

    This is not full latest snapshot but this result is reached with a recent snapshot (exactly i don’t remember what but i’m sure to said number few post ago) installing with opkg the update di package.

    root@geexbox:~# free
                 total       used       free     shared    buffe
    rs     cached
    Mem:       3879044     472100    3406944          0     1292
    60     100940
    -/+ buffers/cache:     241900    3637144
    Swap:            0          0          0

    This is what i expecting. And this is correct for you?


    Warped Rudi

    Yes! That’s what it should look like. We used a memory configuration, that was optimized for systems with less than 2GB of RAM. It gave maximum performance on such systems, however restricted the amount of usable memory.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.