[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090615170726.GI31969@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:07:26 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
"chris.mason@...cle.com" <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] HWPOISON: Intro (v5)
> But then if you
> can't sort the resulting mess out because your patches are too limited
> its not useful yet is it.
With "too limited" you refer to unpoisioning?
Again very slowly:
- If you have a lot of errors you die eventually anyways.
- If you have a very low rate of errors (which is the normal case) you don't
need unpoisioning because the memory lost for each error is miniscule.
- In the case of a hypervisor it's actually not memory lost, but only
guest physical address space, which is plenty on a 64bit system. You can
eventually replace it by readding memory to a guest, but that's unlikely
to be needed.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists