From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758704AbbJ3GUW (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2015 02:20:22 -0400 Received: from mgwym02.jp.fujitsu.com ([211.128.242.41]:24141 "EHLO mgwym02.jp.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758638AbbJ3GUR (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2015 02:20:17 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v2.3.2 X-SHieldMailCheckerPolicyVersion: FJ-ISEC-20150223 X-SHieldMailCheckerMailID: 0328145bbb764cc1b27e80b935beb75d Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option To: "Luck, Tony" , "Izumi, Taku" References: <1444915942-15281-1-git-send-email-izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F32B5A060@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> <5628B427.3050403@jp.fujitsu.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F32B5C7AE@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> <322B7BFA-08FE-4A8F-B54C-86901BDB7CBD@intel.com> Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "qiuxishi@huawei.com" , "mel@csn.ul.ie" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "Hansen, Dave" , "matt@codeblueprint.co.uk" From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki Message-ID: <56330C0A.3060901@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:19:54 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <322B7BFA-08FE-4A8F-B54C-86901BDB7CBD@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2015/10/23 10:44, Luck, Tony wrote: > First part of each memory controller. I have two memory controllers on each node > 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 ? Thanks, -Kame