[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87obkgpoi1.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:01:26 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>
Subject: 896MB address limit (was: Re: [PATCH 04/13] x86, mm: Revert back good_end setting for 64bit)
I am going to see about merging these two threads.
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>>> with bzImage or vmlinux?
>>
>> bzImage I presume. Certainly the bzImage has lost it's 896M limit,
>> which is where ultimiately the 896M limite came from.
>
> they are using updated kexec-tools ?
>
> last time when i checked the code for kexec-tools
> found the 896M problem was from kexec-tools bzimage support.
Cliff Wickman was the guy at sgi running the tests.
To the best of my knowledge he was runing an up to date kexec-tools and
was loading a bzImage. Of course his initial reaction was where did the
896M limit come from, as he had just updated to a kernel with the limit
a few weeks ago.
YH please talk to Cliff directly.
Eric
--
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