* Re: Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST
2021-12-06 1:32 [ISSUE] Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST daerich
@ 2021-12-06 15:44 ` parallelistic
2021-12-12 22:02 ` daerich
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: parallelistic @ 2021-12-06 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 449 bytes --]
New comment by parallelistic on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/34399#issuecomment-986897709
Comment:
I don't see any reason not to have it enabled, but really I've never seen anyone actually use it in practice, instead, the most common approach is using either ``memtest86(+)``, or a userspace equivalent such as ``memtester``. (but I've never used it so I cannot say anything about how well it works)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST
2021-12-06 1:32 [ISSUE] Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST daerich
2021-12-06 15:44 ` parallelistic
@ 2021-12-12 22:02 ` daerich
2021-12-12 22:03 ` daerich
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: daerich @ 2021-12-12 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1150 bytes --]
New comment by daerich on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/34399#issuecomment-991978539
Comment:
Well that rare usage might be because of its obscurity.
Otherwise I don't see why anyone would prefer userspace applications to (almost) test their entire memory.
As mentioned on the memtester website, it relies on the `malloc(3)`-runtime of the underlying libc, which in turn is managed by the Kernel, or the `mmap(2)`system call disallowing testing of close to every bit on silicon, since Kernel and userspace naturally require at least some space. That is especially mentioned in the project's _README_.
For memtest86+, on its webpage it seems ___stable___ support for modern CPU seems immature disqualifying it for production use.
A perk of CONFIG_MEMTEST would be the feature that the kernel would reserve it as "badmem" ensuring proper functionality of the OS.
Debian seemed to have the discussion a while back. After no real objection they enabled it in 2.6x kernels. But it would be nice if a kernel package maintainer would comment on that, since they, obviously, would have the final say...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST
2021-12-06 1:32 [ISSUE] Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST daerich
2021-12-06 15:44 ` parallelistic
2021-12-12 22:02 ` daerich
@ 2021-12-12 22:03 ` daerich
2021-12-12 22:03 ` daerich
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: daerich @ 2021-12-12 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1158 bytes --]
New comment by daerich on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/34399#issuecomment-991978539
Comment:
Well that rare usage might be because of its obscurity.
Otherwise I don't see why anyone would prefer userspace applications to (almost) test their entire memory.
As mentioned on the memtester website, it relies on the `malloc(3)`-runtime of the underlying libc, which in turn is managed by the Kernel, or the `mmap(2)`system call disallowing testing of close to every bit on silicon, since Kernel and userspace naturally require at least some space. That is especially mentioned in the project's _README_.
For memtest86+, on its webpage it seems ___stable___ support for modern CPU seems immature disqualifying it for production use.
A perk of CONFIG_MEMTEST would be the feature that the kernel would reserve bad memory as "badmem" ensuring proper functionality of the OS.
Debian seemed to have the discussion a while back. After no real objection they enabled it in 2.6x kernels. But it would be nice if a kernel package maintainer would comment on that, since they, obviously, would have the final say...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST
2021-12-06 1:32 [ISSUE] Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST daerich
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-12 22:03 ` daerich
@ 2021-12-12 22:03 ` daerich
2021-12-12 22:12 ` daerich
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: daerich @ 2021-12-12 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1159 bytes --]
New comment by daerich on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/34399#issuecomment-991978539
Comment:
Well that rare usage might be because of its obscurity.
Otherwise I don't see why anyone would prefer userspace applications to test (almost) their entire memory.
As mentioned on the memtester website, it relies on the `malloc(3)`-runtime of the underlying libc, which in turn is managed by the Kernel, or the `mmap(2)`system call disallowing testing of close to every bit on silicon, since Kernel and userspace naturally require at least some space. That is especially mentioned in the project's _README_.
For memtest86+, on its webpage it seems ___stable___ support for modern CPU seems immature disqualifying it for production use.
A perk of CONFIG_MEMTEST would be the feature that the kernel would reserve bad memory as "badmem" ensuring proper functionality of the OS.
Debian seemed to have the discussion a while back. After no real objection they enabled it in 2.6x kernels. But it would be nice if a kernel package maintainer would comment on that, since they, obviously, would have the final say...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST
2021-12-06 1:32 [ISSUE] Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST daerich
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-12 22:03 ` daerich
@ 2021-12-12 22:12 ` daerich
2021-12-12 22:18 ` Question: Linux5.15 - enabling CONFIG_MEMTEST daerich
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: daerich @ 2021-12-12 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1348 bytes --]
New comment by daerich on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/34399#issuecomment-991978539
Comment:
Well that rare usage might be because of its obscurity.
Otherwise I don't see why anyone would prefer userspace applications to test (almost) their entire memory.
As mentioned on the memtester website, it relies on the `malloc(3)`-runtime of the underlying libc, which in turn is managed by the Kernel, or the `mmap(2)`system call disallowing testing of close to every bit on silicon, since kernel and userspace naturally require at least some memory. That is especially mentioned in the project's _README_.
For memtest86+, on its webpage it seems ___stable___ support for modern CPU seems immature disqualifying it for production use;
preliminary support for HASWELL CPUs - Intel's 4th Gen, we are currently on the 12th, Alderlake.
In fact, searching for any ".*lake" in the changelog on the website yields not results.
A perk of CONFIG_MEMTEST would be the feature that the kernel would reserve bad memory as "badmem" ensuring proper functionality of the OS.
Debian seemed to have the discussion a while back. After no real objection they enabled it in 2.6x kernels. But it would be nice if a kernel package maintainer would comment on that, since they, obviously, would have the final say...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: Question: Linux5.15 - enabling CONFIG_MEMTEST
2021-12-06 1:32 [ISSUE] Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST daerich
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-12 22:12 ` daerich
@ 2021-12-12 22:18 ` daerich
2021-12-13 18:42 ` RFC: " leahneukirchen
2021-12-14 13:13 ` [ISSUE] [CLOSED] " leahneukirchen
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: daerich @ 2021-12-12 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1352 bytes --]
New comment by daerich on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/34399#issuecomment-991978539
Comment:
Well that rare usage might be because of its obscurity.
Otherwise I don't see why anyone would prefer userspace applications to test (almost) their entire memory.
As mentioned on the memtester website, it relies on the `malloc(3)`-runtime of the underlying libc, which in turn is managed by the Kernel, and/or the `mmap(2)`system call disallowing testing of close to every bit on silicon, since kernel and userspace naturally require at least some memory. That is especially mentioned in the project's _README_.
For memtest86+, on its webpage it seems ___stable___ support for modern CPU seems immature disqualifying it for production use;
preliminary support for HASWELL CPUs - Intel's 4th Gen, we are currently on the 12th, Alderlake.
In fact, searching for any ".*lake" in the changelog on the website yields not results.
A perk of CONFIG_MEMTEST would be the feature that the kernel would reserve bad memory as "badmem" ensuring proper functionality of the OS.
Debian seemed to have the discussion a while back. After no real objection they enabled it in 2.6x kernels. But it would be nice if a kernel package maintainer would comment on that, since they, obviously, would have the final say...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: RFC: Linux5.15 - enabling CONFIG_MEMTEST
2021-12-06 1:32 [ISSUE] Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST daerich
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-12 22:18 ` Question: Linux5.15 - enabling CONFIG_MEMTEST daerich
@ 2021-12-13 18:42 ` leahneukirchen
2021-12-14 13:13 ` [ISSUE] [CLOSED] " leahneukirchen
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: leahneukirchen @ 2021-12-13 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 175 bytes --]
New comment by leahneukirchen on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/34399#issuecomment-992762966
Comment:
Will queue for next bump.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [ISSUE] [CLOSED] RFC: Linux5.15 - enabling CONFIG_MEMTEST
2021-12-06 1:32 [ISSUE] Question: Linux5.15 - enablling CONFIG_MEMTEST daerich
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-13 18:42 ` RFC: " leahneukirchen
@ 2021-12-14 13:13 ` leahneukirchen
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: leahneukirchen @ 2021-12-14 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 653 bytes --]
Closed issue by daerich on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/34399
Description:
Hi :D,
while looking for a way to, just in case, checking most of the installed memory for corruption/faulty behavior on Linux, I stumbled upon
the "memtest=" kernel parameter, which supposedly lets you run those kinds of tests(in a very primitive way).
Now, not being proficient in all of the Kernels quirks/bugs, is there a reason it is disabled by default in Void's (latest) packaged Kernel(s)?
And, could it be enabled?
Or is the gain miniscule, the feature obscure/deprecated, unreliable, not qualified for normal use?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread