Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1262092
| From | Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option |
| Date | 2015-11-04 08:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qr0d4-5pG-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <qmxsZ-x2-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qmz1M-2PW-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qmzEu-3yN-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qpbmh-2ij-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qpnQu-1sY-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> - 2015-11-04 08:00 +0100
csiph-web