[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinN0EOH=OMQ8idG7Xt5OufU-6Rn3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:24:41 -0700
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Craig Bergstrom <craigb@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fa.linux.kernel@...glegroups.com,
Rick van Rein <rick@...rein.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Stefan Assmann <sassmann@...nic.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"rdunlap@...otime.net" <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Nancy Yuen <yuenn@...gle.com>,
Michael Ditto <mditto@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] support for broken memory modules (BadRAM)
One extra consideration for this whole proposal ...
Is the "physical address" a stable enough representation of the location
of the faulty memory cells?
On high end systems I can see a number of ways where the mapping
from cells to physical address may change across reboot:
1) System support redundant memory (rank sparing or mirroring)
2) BIOS self test removes some memory from use
3) A multi-node system elects a different node to be boot-meister,
which results in reshuffling of the address map.
If any of these can happen: then it doesn't matter whether we have
a list of addresses, or a pattern that expands to a list of addresses.
We'll still mark some innocent memory as bad, and allow some known
bad memory to be used - because our "addresses" no longer correspond
to the bad memory cells.
-Tony
--
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