[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <04a49de5-eb79-431b-ba5b-eae2536781c6@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 11:11:40 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
Philipp Rudo <prudo@...hat.com>, Pingfan Liu <piliu@...hat.com>,
Tao Liu <ltao@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Hildenbrand <dhildenb@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] kdump: crashkernel reservation from CMA
On 30.05.25 11:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 30-05-25 10:39:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 30.05.25 10:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> All that being said I would go with an additional parameter to the
>>> kdump cma setup - e.g. cma_sane_dma that would skip waiting and use 10s
>>> otherwise. That would make the optimized behavior opt in, we do not need
>>> to support all sorts of timeouts and also learn if this is not
>>> sufficient.
>>>
>>> Makes sense?
>>
>> Just so I understand correctly, you mean extending the "crashkernel=" option
>> with a boolean parameter? If set, e.g., wait 1s, otherwise magic number 10?
>
> crashkernel=1G,cma,cma_sane_dma # no wait on transition
But is no wait ok? I mean, any O_DIRECT with any device would at least
take a bit, no?
Of course, there is a short time between the crash and actually
triggerying kdump.
> crashkernel=1G,cma # wait on transition with e.g. 10s timeout
In general, would work for me.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists