linux-kernel - Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:26:09 +0200
From:	Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@....de>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tony.luck@...el.com, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>,
	Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto

Andi Kleen schrieb:
>> As an initial approximation I would use a 32nd of low memory.
> 
> That means a 1TB machine will have a 32GB crash kernel.
> 
> Surely that's excessive?!?
> 
> It would be repeating all the same mistakes people made with hash tables
> several years ago.

The idea of Eric was to shrink the reserved memory in an init script. I
doubt that the 1 TB machine will have any problems or performance issue
when booting with (1 TB - 32 GB) memory.

> It doesn't sound reasonable to Andi.
> 
> Why do you even want to grow the crash kernel that much? Is there
> any real problem with a 64-128MB crash kernel?

Try it out. No chance for 64-128MB crashkernel on "medium" IA64 machines.


Regards,
Bernhard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/