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

["Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>]

> 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.

Socket0 is also a problem.  We want to mirror <4GB addresses because
there is a bunch of critical stuff there (entire kernel text+data). But we
can currently only mirror one block per memory controller, so we end up
with just 2GB mirrored (the 2GB-4GB range is MMIO).  This isn't enough
for even a small machine (I have 128GB on node0 ... but that is really the
bare minimum configuration ... 2GB is only enough to cover the "struct
page" allocations for node0).  I really have to allocate some more mirror
from the other memory controller.

-Tony

--
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>