[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5628B427.3050403@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:02:15 +0900
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Cc: "qiuxishi@...wei.com" <qiuxishi@...wei.com>,
"mel@....ul.ie" <mel@....ul.ie>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"matt@...eblueprint.co.uk" <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce kernelcore=reliable option
On 2015/10/22 3:17, Luck, Tony wrote:
> + if (reliable_kernelcore) {
> + for_each_memblock(memory, r) {
> + if (memblock_is_mirror(r))
> + continue;
>
> Should we have a safety check here that there is some mirrored memory? If you give
> the kernelcore=reliable option on a machine which doesn't have any mirror configured,
> then we'll mark all memory as removable.
You're right.
> What happens then? Do kernel allocations fail? Or do they fall back to using removable memory?
Maybe the kernel cannot boot because NORMAL zone is empty.
> Is there a /proc or /sys file that shows the current counts for the removable zone? I just
> tried this patch with a high percentage of memory marked as mirror ... but I'd like to see
> how much is actually being used to tune things a bit.
>
I think /proc/zoneinfo can show detailed numbers per zone. Do we need some for meminfo ?
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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