[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0ca4c27a-a707-4d36-9689-b09ef715ac67@igalia.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 09:17:59 -0300
From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"anton@...msg.org" <anton@...msg.org>,
"ccross@...roid.com" <ccross@...roid.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <kernel@...ccoli.net>
Subject: Re: pstore/ramoops - why only collect a partial dmesg?
On 03/01/2022 20:31, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Guilherme,
>
> The efi (and erst) backends for pstore have severe limitations on the size
> of objects that can store (just a few Kbytes) so pstore breaks the dmesg
> data into pieces.
>
> I'm not super-familiar with how ramoops behaves, but maybe it allows setting
> a much larger "record_size" ... so this split isn't needed?
>
> -Tony
>
Hi Tony, thanks a lot for your response! It makes sense indeed, but in
my case, for example, I have a "log_buf_len=4M", but cannot allocate a
4M record_size - when I try that, I can only see page_alloc spews and
pstore/ramoops doesn't work. So, I could allocate 2M and that works
fine, but I then lose half of my dmesg heh
Hence my question.
If there's no special reason, I guess would make sense to allow ramoops
to split the dmesg, what do you think?
Cheers,
Guilherme
Powered by blists - more mailing lists