From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>,
Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@gmx.de>,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 23:03:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1iqgze740.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
> As an initial approximation I would use a 32nd of low memory.
That means a 1TB machine will have a 32GB crash kernel.
Surely that's excessive?!?
It would be repeating all the same mistakes people made with hash tables
several years ago.
>
> That can be written to (with enough privileges when no crash kernel is
> loaded) reduce the amount of memory reserved by the crash kernel.
>
> Bernhard does that sound useful to you?
>
> Amerigo does that seem reasonable?
It doesn't sound reasonable to Andi.
Why do you even want to grow the crash kernel that much? Is there
any real problem with a 64-128MB crash kernel?
-Andi
>
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@gmx.de>,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:03:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1iqgze740.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
> As an initial approximation I would use a 32nd of low memory.
That means a 1TB machine will have a 32GB crash kernel.
Surely that's excessive?!?
It would be repeating all the same mistakes people made with hash tables
several years ago.
>
> That can be written to (with enough privileges when no crash kernel is
> loaded) reduce the amount of memory reserved by the crash kernel.
>
> Bernhard does that sound useful to you?
>
> Amerigo does that seem reasonable?
It doesn't sound reasonable to Andi.
Why do you even want to grow the crash kernel that much? Is there
any real problem with a 64-128MB crash kernel?
-Andi
>
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@gmx.de>,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 23:03:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1iqgze740.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
> As an initial approximation I would use a 32nd of low memory.
That means a 1TB machine will have a 32GB crash kernel.
Surely that's excessive?!?
It would be repeating all the same mistakes people made with hash tables
several years ago.
>
> That can be written to (with enough privileges when no crash kernel is
> loaded) reduce the amount of memory reserved by the crash kernel.
>
> Bernhard does that sound useful to you?
>
> Amerigo does that seem reasonable?
It doesn't sound reasonable to Andi.
Why do you even want to grow the crash kernel that much? Is there
any real problem with a 64-128MB crash kernel?
-Andi
>
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-07 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 99+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-05 11:19 [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 1/7] x86: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:41 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 13:41 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 14:45 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-05 14:45 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-05 20:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-05 20:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 1:55 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 1:55 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 7:15 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-06 7:15 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-06 7:44 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 7:44 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 7:56 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 7:56 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 2/7] x86: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:43 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 13:43 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-06 1:45 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 1:45 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 22:51 ` Yu, Fenghua
2009-08-05 22:51 ` Yu, Fenghua
2009-08-06 1:56 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 1:56 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 3/7] ia64: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:49 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 13:49 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 4/7] ia64: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:46 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 13:46 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 5/7] powerpc: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:49 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 13:49 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 11:20 ` [Patch 6/7] powerpc: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:20 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:50 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 13:50 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 11:20 ` [Patch 7/7] doc: update the kdump document Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:20 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:33 ` [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-05 13:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-05 14:04 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 14:04 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 22:57 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-05 22:57 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 2:05 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 2:05 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 2:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 2:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 3:39 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 3:39 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 3:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 3:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 5:57 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 5:57 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 6:14 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 6:14 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 6:37 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 6:37 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 8:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 8:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 8:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 8:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 9:04 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 9:04 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-07 19:13 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-07 19:13 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-06 9:11 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 9:11 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-07 19:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-07 19:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-07 19:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-07 21:03 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2009-08-07 21:03 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-07 21:03 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-07 21:26 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-07 21:26 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-07 21:26 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-07 22:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-07 22:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-07 22:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-07 21:31 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-07 21:31 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-07 21:31 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-07 22:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-07 22:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-07 22:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-10 3:11 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-10 3:11 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-10 3:11 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 1:39 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 1:39 ` Amerigo Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=avorontsov@ru.mvista.com \
--cc=bernhard.walle@gmx.de \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nhorman@redhat.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.