From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"Izumi, Taku" <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"qiuxishi@huawei.com" <qiuxishi@huawei.com>,
"mel@csn.ul.ie" <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
"matt@codeblueprint.co.uk" <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:56:52 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5639AC34.9030603@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F32B64312@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"Izumi, Taku" <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"qiuxishi@huawei.com" <qiuxishi@huawei.com>,
"mel@csn.ul.ie" <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
"matt@codeblueprint.co.uk" <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:56:52 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5639AC34.9030603@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F32B64312@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-04 6:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-15 13:32 [PATCH] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option Taku Izumi
2015-10-15 13:32 ` Taku Izumi
2015-10-19 2:25 ` Xishi Qiu
2015-10-19 2:25 ` Xishi Qiu
2015-10-20 0:34 ` Izumi, Taku
2015-10-20 0:34 ` Izumi, Taku
2015-10-20 1:42 ` Xishi Qiu
2015-10-20 1:42 ` Xishi Qiu
2015-10-21 18:17 ` Luck, Tony
2015-10-21 18:17 ` Luck, Tony
2015-10-22 10:02 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2015-10-22 10:02 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2015-10-22 23:26 ` Luck, Tony
2015-10-23 1:01 ` Izumi, Taku
2015-10-23 1:01 ` Izumi, Taku
2015-10-23 1:44 ` Luck, Tony
2015-10-23 1:44 ` Luck, Tony
2015-10-30 6:19 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2015-10-30 6:19 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2015-10-30 19:42 ` Luck, Tony
2015-10-30 19:42 ` Luck, Tony
2015-11-04 6:56 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki [this message]
2015-11-04 6:56 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2015-10-23 3:36 ` Xishi Qiu
2015-10-23 3:36 ` Xishi Qiu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5639AC34.9030603@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=qiuxishi@huawei.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.