[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <515A03DB.6040107@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:02:03 -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@...e.hu>, WANG Chao <chaowang@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: use Crash kernel for Crash kernel low
On 04/01/2013 02:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:47 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 04/01/2013 12:26 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>
>>> crashkernel=<size>,<option>,<option>.. and crashkernel=800M,high sound
>>> good to me.
>>>
>>> So atleast for 3.9 kernel, shall we hide new semantics behind
>>> crashkernel=XM,high and by default crashkernel=XM tries to emulate
>>> crashkernel=XM,low to retain backward compatibility?
>>
>> Yes, I suspect so.
>
> current we have:
> 1. crashkernel=XM
> 2. crashkernel=XM crashkernel_low=YM
>
> so you want to change to
> 1. crashkernel=XM,low or crashkernel=XM
> 2. crashkernel=XM,high
> 3. crashkernel=XM,high crashkernel=YM,low
>
> looks like you change your mind, now you are agreeing on
> some could low and some could be high.
>
It sounds that the "never DMA'd to memory" notion requires that we have
some low memory for the iommu, no?
Or am I misunderstanding what you are asking here?
-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