linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:56:52 +0900
From:	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"Izumi, Taku" <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"qiuxishi@...wei.com" <qiuxishi@...wei.com>,
	"mel@....ul.ie" <mel@....ul.ie>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	"matt@...eblueprint.co.uk" <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option

On 2015/10/31 4:42, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> If each memory controller has the same distance/latency, you (your firmware) don't need
>> to allocate reliable memory per each memory controller.
>> If distance is problem, another node should be allocated.
>>
>> ...is the behavior(splitting zone) really required ?
>
> It's useful from a memory bandwidth perspective to have allocations
> spread across both memory controllers. Keeping a whole bunch of
> Xeon cores fed needs all the bandwidth you can get.
>

Hmm. But physical address layout is not related to dual memory controller.
I think reliable range can be contiguous by firmware...

-Kame


--
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/