[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130321144929.GH3934@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:49:29 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>, cpw@....com,
kumagai-atsushi@....nes.nec.co.jp, lisa.mitchell@...com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 18/21] vmcore: check if vmcore objects satify mmap()'s
page-size boundary requirement
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:22:59AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com> writes:
>
> > OK, rigorously, suceess or faliure of the requested free pages
> > allocation depends on actual memory layout at the 2nd kernel boot. To
> > increase the possibility of allocating memory, we have no method but
> > reserve more memory for the 2nd kernel now.
>
> Good enough. If there are fragmentation issues that cause allocation
> problems on larger boxes we can use vmalloc and remap_vmalloc_range, but
> we certainly don't need to start there.
>
> Especialy as for most 8 or 16 core boxes we are talking about a 4KiB or
> an 8KiBP allocation. Aka order 0 or order 1.
>
Actually we are already handling the large SGI machines so we need
to plan for 4096 cpus now while we write these patches.
vmalloc() and remap_vmalloc_range() sounds reasonable. So that's what
we should probaly use.
Alternatively why not allocate everything in 4K pages and use vmcore_list
to map offset into right addresses and call remap_pfn_range() on these
addresses.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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