[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D0A43FD.3070509@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:53:17 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Maxim Uvarov <muvarov@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: kdump broken on 2.6.37-rc4
On 12/16/2010 08:22 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>
>> I think limiting kdump below 512 MiB on 32 bits may make sense; perhaps
>> even on 64 bits. It's pretty conservative, after all...
>>
>> Opinions?
>
> Actually it will be good to know why 512MB. I know in the past we have
> been talking of reserving memory in higher memory regions and Neil Horman
> had been trying to boot bzImage in 64 bit mode so that it can be run
> from higher addresses.
>
> So right now limiting it is easy but it is desirable to be able to run
> bzImage from as high a address as possible and knowing why to limit it
> to 512MB can help see if there is a way to get rid of that limitation.
>
> I probably would not worry about 32bit systems but for 64 bit, I
> cerntainly want to make it boot from higher addresses (if it is possible
> technically).
>
It's worth noting that there is almost always going to be a need for
*some* low memory.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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