[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 23:03:06 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: 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>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@....de>,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto
> 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.
>
> That can be written to (with enough privileges when no crash kernel is
> loaded) reduce the amount of memory reserved by the crash kernel.
>
> Bernhard does that sound useful to you?
>
> Amerigo does that seem reasonable?
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?
-Andi
>
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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