Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:56:25 -0800 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: Document hadling of bad memory |
| |
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:15:21 +0100 Pavel Machek wrote:
> Document how to deal with bad memory reported with memtest. > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> > > diff --git a/Documentation/bad_memory.txt b/Documentation/bad_memory.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..df84162 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/bad_memory.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ > +March 2008 > +Jan-Simon Moeller, dl9pf@gmx.de > + > + > +How to deal with bad memory e.g. reported by memtest86+ ? > +######################################################### > + > +There are three possibilities I know of: > + > +1) Reinsert/swap the memory modules > + > +2) Buy new modules (best!) or try to exchange the memory > + if you have spare-parts > + > +3) Use BadRAM or memmap > + > +This Howto is about number 3) .
No space between 3) and '.'.
> + > + > +BadRAM > +###### > +BadRAM is the actively developed and available as kernel-patch > +here: http://rick.vanrein.org/linux/badram/ > + > +For more details see the BadRAM documentation. > + > +memmap > +###### > + > +memmap is already in the kernel and usable as kernel-parameter at
a kernel parameter at
> +boot-time. Its syntax is slightly strange and you may need to
boot time.
> +calculate the values by yourself!
s/!/./
> + > +Syntax to exclude a memory area (see kernel-parameters.txt for details): > +memmap=<size>$<address> > + > +Example: memtest86+ reported here errors at address 0x18691458, 0x18698424 and
s/here //
> + some others. All had 0x1869xxxx in common, so I chose a pattern of > + 0x18690000,0xffff0000.
What is the 0xffff0000 for? Needs explanation.
> + > +With the numbers of the example above: > +memmap=64K$0x18690000 > + or > +memmap=0x10000$0x18690000 > +
Please lose the last empty line.
and thanks for the patch/new file.
--- ~Randy
| |