[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190225111216.GA9276@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:12:16 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, bhe@...hat.com,
Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, yinghai@...nel.org,
vgoyal@...hat.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X
consistent with kaslr
On 02/25/19 at 12:00pm, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:00:26PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 09:42:41AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > The current default of 256MB was found by experiments on a bigger
> > > number of machines, to create a reasonable default that is at least
> > > likely to be sufficient of an average machine.
> >
> > Exactly, and this is what makes sense.
> >
> > The code should try the requested reservation and if it fails, it should
> > try high allocation with default swiotlb size because we need to reserve
> > *some* range.
>
> Right, makes sense. While at it, maybe it is time to move the default
> allocation policy to 'high' again. The change was reverted six years ago
> because it broke old kexec tools, but those are probably out-of-service
> now. I think this change would make the whole crashdump allocation
> process less fragile.
One concern about this is for average cases, one do not need so much
memory for kdump. For example in RHEL we use crashkernel=auto to
automatically reserve kdump kernel memory, and for x86 the reserved size
is like below now:
1G-64G:160M,64G-1T:256M,1T-:512M
That means for a machine with less than 64G memory we only allocate
160M, it works for most machines in our lab.
If we move to high as default, it will allocate 160M high + 256M low. It
is too much for people who is good with the default 160M. Especially
for virtual machine with less memory (but > 4G)
To make the process less fragile maybe we can remove the 896M limitation
and only try <4G then go to high.
Thanks
Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists