Thread (7 messages) 7 messages, 6 authors, 2011-06-30

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] support for broken memory modules (BadRAM)

From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Date: 2011-06-29 21:24:45
Also in: lkml

One extra consideration for this whole proposal ...

Is the "physical address" a stable enough representation of the location
of the faulty memory cells?

On high end systems I can see a number of ways where the mapping
from cells to physical address may change across reboot:

1) System support redundant memory (rank sparing or mirroring)
2) BIOS self test removes some memory from use
3) A multi-node system elects a different node to be boot-meister,
which results in reshuffling of the address map.

If any of these can happen: then it doesn't matter whether we have
a list of addresses, or a pattern that expands to a list of addresses.
We'll still mark some innocent memory as bad, and allow some known
bad memory to be used - because our "addresses" no longer correspond
to the bad memory cells.

-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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help