linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Early use of boot service memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131114152623.GC3913@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:26:23 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	jerry.hoemann@...com, rob@...dley.net, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org, matt.fleming@...el.com,
	yinghai@...nel.org, penberg@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Early use of boot service memory

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:49:42PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

[..]
> In other words, allocating the crashkernel high has ALL the advantages,
> plus a few more, and NONE of the disadvantages.

It allocates low memory for swiotlb. So that extra 72M allocation is the
disadvantage. With so many virtual machines on a single host, I don't
want to reserve extra 72MB on each virtual machine while I could
easily do away with memory reservation below 4G. 

So I do think that first trying memory below 896M, then below 4G and then
above 4G makes sense and we should modify crashkernel=X to handle that.

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/