[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210224114141.ziywca4dvn5fs6js@Rk>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:41:41 +0800
From: Coiby Xu <coxu@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] i40e: don't open i40iw client for kdump
Hi Jakub,
Thank you for reviewing the patch!
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:07:01 +0800 Coiby Xu wrote:
>> i40iw consumes huge amounts of memory. For example, on a x86_64 machine,
>> i40iw consumed 1.5GB for Intel Corporation Ethernet Connection X722 for
>> for 1GbE while "craskernel=auto" only reserved 160M. With the module
>> parameter "resource_profile=2", we can reduce the memory usage of i40iw
>> to ~300M which is still too much for kdump.
>>
>> Disabling the client registration would spare us the client interface
>> operation open , i.e., i40iw_open for iwarp/uda device. Thus memory is
>> saved for kdump.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu <coxu@...hat.com>
>
>Is i40iw or whatever the client is not itself under a CONFIG which
>kdump() kernels could be reasonably expected to disable?
>
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you mean we shouldn't
disable i40iw for kdump?
--
Best regards,
Coiby
Powered by blists - more mailing lists