From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 01:55:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 01:55:44 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:26190 "EHLO frodo.biederman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 01:55:43 -0500 To: Dave Hansen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: kexec reboot code buffer References: <3E31AC58.2020802@us.ibm.com> <3E35AAE4.10204@us.ibm.com> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 28 Jan 2003 00:04:19 -0700 In-Reply-To: <3E35AAE4.10204@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dave Hansen writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Dave Hansen writes: > >>On my system, it appears to lock up in: > >>kimage_alloc_reboot_code_pages() > >>after the kexec -l. > > > > > > O.k. It should come out of it eventually from what I have > > seen described, the current algorithm is definitely inefficient on > > your machine. > > It does appear to completely hang in the free loop. Something funny is > happening there. I'll try to provide more details later. BTW, do you > mind updating your patches for 2.5.59? I will give it a shot shortly I have been intensely busy just lately so find the free second is a bit difficult. At the same > I'm having some other problems > and I want to make sure it isn't my bad merging that's at fault :) I don't recall any merging issues at all with the stock kernel, just a some slight line changes. > > > And being able to allocate from 3GB instead of just 1GB is > > much more polite. The question then is how do I specify the zones > > properly. > > Actually, I think that using lowmem is OK. The machine is going away > soon anyway, and the necessary memory is a very small portion, > especially on a machine with this much RAM. I agree that lowmem for the common case is fine. For kexec on panic, and a some weird cases using high mem is beneficial. I don't have a problem with changing it back to just lowmem for the time being. Eric