[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <513E28B8.3000502@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:55:52 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
WANG Chao <chaowang@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, kdump: Set crashkernel_low automatically
On 03/11/2013 11:50 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> What is the purpose of reserving that kind of memory below 896 MB? If
>> you have a 32-bit system, it will likely be useless since you are
>> robbing the primary of most of lowmem, on a 64-bit system 896 MB is not
>> a magic value in any way...?
>
> We did not touch 32 bit system.
>
> Do you mean that we should
> For 64bit, we should try under 4G, and then try MAXMEM
> instead of try under 896M, then 4G, and MAXMEM?
>
> Try 896M at first, we will let user to avoid updating their kexec-tools.
>
Are you saying 896M is somehow hardcoded into kexec-tools?
I actually disagree with trying low memory at all. Push kdump as high
into the memory range as we can go, if there is a performance penalty it
is much better to take it in the kdump kernel.
All the voodoo to try to keep people from updating kexec-tools is
disturbing; although breaking userspace is bad, updating kexec-tools is
probably easier than updating the kernel, and carrying the voodoo on
indefinitely has serious consequences.
-hpa
--
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