[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1394153258.21206.1.camel@concordia>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:47:38 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Nikita Yushchenko <nyushchenko@....rtsoft.ru>
Cc: kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, yadviga@....rtsoft.ru,
lugovskoy@....rtsoft.ru, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec/powerpc: fix exporting memory limit
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 18:24 +0400, Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
> When preparing dump-capturing kernel, kexec userspace tool needs to know
> actual amount of memory used by the running kernel. This may differ from
> extire available DRAM for a couple of reasons. To address this issue,
> kdump kernel support code injects several attributes into device tree that
> are later captured by userspace kexec tool via /proc interface.
>
> One such attrubute is 'chosen/linux,memory_limit' that is used to pass
> memory limit of the running kernel.
>
> This was initialized using kernel's 'memory_limit' variable, that is set
> by early init code based on mem= kernel parameter and other reasons.
>
> But there are cases when memory_limit variable does not contain proper
> information. One such case is when !CONFIG_HIGHMEM kernel runs on system
> with memory large enough not to fit into lowmem.
Why doesn't the !CONFIG_HIGHMEM code update memory_limit to reflect reality.
cheers
--
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