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

From	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	RE: [PATCH][RFC] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option
Date	2015-10-12 20:50 +0200
Message-ID	<qiQky-7rT-39@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qhySK-1As-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qhzOO-2W9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qhC9Y-6qx-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qhDfI-7Wk-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qhRVo-3Tl-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

> If we reuse the movable zone, we should set appropriate size of
> mirrored memory region(normal zone) and non-mirrored memory
> region(movable zone). In some cases, kernel will take more memory
> than user, e.g. some apps run in kernel space, like module.
>
> I think user can set the size in BIOS interface, right?

Exact methods may vary as different BIOS vendors implement things the way
they like (or the way an OEM asks them).  In the Intel reference BIOS you can either
set an explicit mirror size for each memory controller, or you can have the BIOS
look at some EFI boot variables to find a percentage of memory to use spread
across all memory controllers.

See:
https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/43/6a/Memory%20Address%20Range%20Mirroring%20Validation%20Guide.pdf

There are patches to efibootmgr(8) to set/show the EFI variables:
git://github.com/rhinstaller/efibootmgr

-Tony
 



--
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