Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755241AbXLVQGb (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:06:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752178AbXLVQGZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:06:25 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:39083 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751302AbXLVQGY (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:06:24 -0500 Message-ID: <476D35F6.90900@davidnewall.com> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:36:14 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek CC: Richard D , "'Matthew Bloch'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Testing RAM from userspace / question about memmap= arguments References: <20071221125812.GA4052@ucw.cz> <000001c84472$74b245e0$5e16d1a0$@com> <20071222134612.GA4098@ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20071222134612.GA4098@ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1614 Lines: 36 Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sat 2007-12-22 13:42:47, Richard D wrote: > >> Cant you, modify bootmem allocator to test with memtest patterns and then >> use kexec (as Pavel suggested) to test the one where kernel was sitting >> earlier? >> > > > I do not think you need to modify anything in kernel. Just use > /dev/mem to test areas that kernel doesn't see, then kexec into place > you already tested, and test the rest. > That's still an insufficient test. One failure mode is writes at one location corrupting cells at another. The idea of wanting to do comprehensive and robust memory testing from within the operating system seems dubious at best, to me. If there is something wrong with memtest86, doing the tests from within Linux is not the answer. The answer is to fix memtest86. If the problem is that you automation, e.g. switching a server from production to memory test mode at midnight and back again at 6am, the answer is still to "fix" memtest86. Writing something that grabs some physical RAM from Linux's control, tests it, and then moves the kernel itself so that it can test the rest, is adding a whole extra layer of complexity to an already challenging (I assume, based on errors that dedicated software-based testers miss) problem. Give up on this misguided idea and build on the best tools that are already available. -- 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/