From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1KJxcw-0007qt-MH for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:36:35 +0000 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:36:22 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Move dma32_reserve_bootmem() after reserve_crashkernel() Message-ID: <20080718213622.GA14603@elte.hu> References: <86802c440807180922l3500082chf7dcf0a1bafc6629@mail.gmail.com> <1216400873-21862-1-git-send-email-bwalle@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1216400873-21862-1-git-send-email-bwalle@suse.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Bernhard Walle Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, yhlu.kernel@gmail.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Bernhard Walle wrote: > On a x86-64 machine (nothing special I could encounter) I had the > problem that crashkernel reservation with the usual "64M@16M" failed. > While debugging that, I encountered that dma32_reserve_bootmem() > reserves a memory region which is in that area. > > Because dma32_reserve_bootmem() does not rely on a specific offset but > crashkernel does, it makes sense to move the dma32_reserve_bootmem() > reservation down a bit. I tested that patch and it works without > problems. I don't see any negative effects of that move, but maybe I > oversaw something ... > > While we strictly don't need that patch in 2.6.27 because we have the > automatic, dynamic offset detection, it makes sense to also include it > here because: > > - it's easier to get it in -stable then, > - many people are still used to the 'crashkernel=...@16M' syntax, > - not everybody may be using a reloatable kernel. applied to tip/x86/crashdump, thanks Bernhard. Ingo _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758621AbYGRVgv (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:36:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755735AbYGRVgn (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:36:43 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:55518 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751786AbYGRVgn (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:36:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:36:22 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Bernhard Walle Cc: yhlu.kernel@gmail.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Move dma32_reserve_bootmem() after reserve_crashkernel() Message-ID: <20080718213622.GA14603@elte.hu> References: <86802c440807180922l3500082chf7dcf0a1bafc6629@mail.gmail.com> <1216400873-21862-1-git-send-email-bwalle@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1216400873-21862-1-git-send-email-bwalle@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Bernhard Walle wrote: > On a x86-64 machine (nothing special I could encounter) I had the > problem that crashkernel reservation with the usual "64M@16M" failed. > While debugging that, I encountered that dma32_reserve_bootmem() > reserves a memory region which is in that area. > > Because dma32_reserve_bootmem() does not rely on a specific offset but > crashkernel does, it makes sense to move the dma32_reserve_bootmem() > reservation down a bit. I tested that patch and it works without > problems. I don't see any negative effects of that move, but maybe I > oversaw something ... > > While we strictly don't need that patch in 2.6.27 because we have the > automatic, dynamic offset detection, it makes sense to also include it > here because: > > - it's easier to get it in -stable then, > - many people are still used to the 'crashkernel=...@16M' syntax, > - not everybody may be using a reloatable kernel. applied to tip/x86/crashdump, thanks Bernhard. Ingo