Re: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option

From	Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option
Date	2015-10-12 12:40 +0200
Message-ID	<qiIGm-4HW-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <qhzOO-2W9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qhC9Y-6qx-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qhDfI-7Wk-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qhHsZ-5GT-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qhL3A-2eh-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 09 Oct, at 06:51:34PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
> 
> Current hardware can map one mirrored region from each memory controller.
> We have two memory controllers per socket.  So on a 4-socket machine we will
> usually have 8 separate mirrored ranges. Two per NUMA node (assuming
> cluster on die is not enabled).
> 
> Practically I think it is safe to assume that any sane configuration will always
> choose to mirror the <4GB range:
> 
> 1) It's a trivial percentage of total memory on a system that supports mirror
> (2GB[1] out of my, essentially minimal, 512GB[2] machine). So 0.4% ... why would
> you not mirror it?
> 2) It contains a bunch of things that you are likely to want mirrored. Currently
> our boot loaders put the kernel there (don't they??). All sorts of BIOS space that
> might be accessed at any time by SMI is there.

Yeah, the bootloader and kernel image will most likely be in < 4GB
region. That's not a hard requirement, and there's certainly support
for loading things at higher addresses, but this low region is
currently still preferred (see CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START).

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Thread

[PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com> - 2015-10-09 08:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> - 2015-10-09 09:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> - 2015-10-09 11:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> - 2015-10-09 12:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> - 2015-10-09 17:10 +0200
          RE: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> - 2015-10-09 21:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2015-10-12 12:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> - 2015-10-10 04:20 +0200
          RE: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> - 2015-10-12 20:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> - 2015-10-13 12:00 +0200
    RE: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> - 2015-10-09 23:50 +0200
      RE: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option "Izumi, Taku" <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com> - 2015-10-14 03:20 +0200

csiph-web