[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A7C9BF1.8070700@gmx.de>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists