[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A7A3445.60903@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:39:17 +0800
From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> writes:
>
>
>> This series of patch implements automatically reserved memory for crashkernel,
>> by introducing a new boot option "crashkernel=auto". This idea is from Neil.
>>
>> In case of breaking user-space applications, it modifies this boot option after
>> it decides how much memory should be reserved.
>>
>> On different arch, the threshold and reserved memory size is different. Please
>> refer patch 7/7 which contains an update for the documentation.
>>
>> Note: This patchset was only tested on x86_64 with differernt memory sizes.
>>
>
> This seems like a silly hard code. Especially for a feature distros don't
> care enough about to implement a working initrd for.
>
> Has anyone bothered to justify those large amounts of memory?
> Where does the 128M go?
>
If 128M is too big, we can make it to be 64M, that is no problem.
I am very open to this. :)
> Please pardon me for being a cynic but I don't see the command line option
> being the bottleneck for real users to make this work.
>
>
Well, take /me as an example, to be honest, I still have no idea how
much memory I should reserve for s390/sh, if I would use kdump on sh, it
*is* my bottleneck.
Thanks.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists