[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150727144557.GP10969@8bytes.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:45:57 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, bp@...e.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jkosina@...e.cz, vgoyal@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yinghai@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel
low memory reserving failed
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:38:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Also, why was this syntax introduced in the first place? Why should the user
> care??
>
> We should only have a single crashkernel option, to enable it - and everything
> else should be figured out by the kernel, automatically.
>
> Any other sub-options just paper over some fragility elsewhere and make the
> feature harder to use, hence more fragile.
Hmm, maybe the reason is that old userspace (kdump/kexec tools) can't
deal with crashkernel loaded high, so that the default for
crashkernel=size allocations was kept to be under 896MB.
If that's not an issue we can change the default and get rid of the
,high and ,low syntax.
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