[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150204141020.GB10078@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:10:20 +0100
From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, crash: Allocate enough low-mem when
crashkernel=high
Hi Baoquan,
On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 04:41:03PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> Before I said 256M may not be a good value, that's because in your patch
> cover you said this number comes from experiments on the affected
> systems, and 128M was still not enough, then you set it to 256M. This
> may be a little rush. I think the step size to increase should be 32M,
> after all previously people only take 64M and 8M, enlarge it on a step
> size of 128M only one time, it can't be seen as patient and careful.
> If it failed on 224M but succeed on 256M, then 256M may be not enough.
> I would like to say 32M is better, then we can make a good evaluate.
That makes sense. I also asked the customer to test intermediate values,
we already know that it works with 256MB but also that 128MB are not
enough. I will report back when I have the results of the intermediate
values in 32MB steps.
Thanks,
Joerg
--
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