[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQUu0WwMgNpog4TKch+MT2i7_DsNvqZxbyQusS4AFxdhQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:15:25 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: WANG Chao <chaowang@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, kdump: crashkernel=X try to reserve below 896M
first, then try below 4G, then MAXMEM
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:11:51PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> Hence both crashkernel=xM and crashkernel=XM,high have their own usage.
> We have been using crashkernel=xM and we know it works. So extending it
> to be able to allocate memory from higher regions, if sufficient memory
> is not available in lower regions makes sense. Memory reservation below
> 4G is more efficient due to not requiring swiotlb. And crashkernel=xM
> has been working for us and users are familiar with it.
>
> So I don't see a point that why would you try to block any move to
> extend crashkernel=xM semantics.
Make the thing simple.
Keep them separately, leave crashkernel=xM to old kexec-tools mostly
and keep crashkernel=xM,high to newer kexec-tools as needed.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
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