| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5639AC34.9030603@jp.fujitsu.com> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists