[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aD7mi4j2llS-Kpfv@dwarf.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:11:55 +0200
From: Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Philipp Rudo <prudo@...hat.com>,
Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>, Pingfan Liu <piliu@...hat.com>,
Tao Liu <ltao@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Hildenbrand <dhildenb@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] x86: implement crashkernel cma reservation
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 07:02:06PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 05/30/25 at 10:31pm, Jiri Bohac wrote:
> ......snip..
> > @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ static void __init arch_reserve_crashkernel(void)
> >
> > ret = parse_crashkernel(boot_command_line, memblock_phys_mem_size(),
> > &crash_size, &crash_base,
> > - &low_size, NULL, &high);
> > + &low_size, &cma_size, &high);
> > if (ret)
> > return;
> >
> > @@ -592,6 +592,7 @@ static void __init arch_reserve_crashkernel(void)
> > }
> >
> > reserve_crashkernel_generic(crash_size, crash_base, low_size, high);
> > + reserve_crashkernel_cma(cma_size);
>
> Wondering if ,high|low is still allowed (or needed) when ,cma is specified.
Probably not needed but it works, totally independent of the
extra CMA-reserved area.
I saw no reason to artificially prevent it.
--
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, Prague, Czechia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists