public inbox for kexec@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lisa Mitchell <lisa.mitchell@hp.com>
To: Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi@mxc.nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc: "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Hoemann, Jerry" <jerry.hoemann@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:20:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1355851243.13097.908.camel@lisamlinux.fc.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121213140648.d4f3a203fcf3bad6d7e80510@mxc.nes.nec.co.jp>

On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 05:06 +0000, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:

> 
> In cyclic mode, we can save only a chunk of bitmap at a time, 
> this fact forces us to scan each cyclic region twice as below:
> 
>   Step1: To determine the offset of kdump's page data region.
>   Step2: To distinguish whether each page is unnecessary or not.
> 
> Step1 should be done before writing phase (write_kdump_pages_and_bitmap_cyclic())
> and step2 is run while writing phase, the whole scan is needed for
> each step.
> On the other hand, v1.4 can execute both step1 and step2 with the temporary
> bitmap file, the whole scan is done just one time to create the file.
> 
> It's a disadvantage in performance, but I think it's unavoidable.
> (There is the exception when the number of cycles is 1, but current
> version also scan twice in spite of redundancy.)
> 
> If more performance is needed, I think we should invent other
> approaches like the idea discussed in the thread below:
> 
>   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-December/007494.html
> 
> Besides, I think v1.4 with the local disc which can contain the temporary
> bitmap file is the fastest version for now.
> 
> > Atushi, am I using the new makedumpfile 1.5.1GA correctly with the
> > kernel patch? 
> 
> Yes, I think you can use mem_map array logic correctly with the patch.
> And you can confirm it with -D option. If you didn't meet the conditions
> to use mem_map array logic, the message below will be showed.
> 
>   "Can't select page_is_buddy handler; follow free lists instead of mem_map array."
> 
> > I didn't understand how to use the options of makedumpfile you
> > mentioned, and when I tried with a vmlinux file, and the -x option,
> > makedumpfile didn't even start, just failed and reset. 
> 
> It might be another problem related -x option.
> For investigation, could you run the command below and show its messages ?
> There is no need to run in 2nd kernel environment.
> 
>   # makedumpfile -g vmcoreinfo -x vmlinux
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Atsushi Kumagai
> 


Thanks for this info, Atsushi.

I was able to test makedumpfile-v1.5.1 on the 4 TB DL980 we had this
weekend, along with the kexec patch to invoke the memory array logic,
and I got encouraging results, in that the difference  in dump time
between makedumpfile 1.4  on a RHEL 6.3 system and makedumpfile-v1.5.1
with the memory array logic seems to be now very small:


Here are my results (file system timestamp data and note the system had
it's filesystem time set way in the past):

					

1.  makedumpfile 1.4 (RHEL 6.3 default), crashkernel 512M:

       root@spb crash]# ls -al --time-style=full-iso
127.0.0.1-2012-05-09-19:55:50^M
total 10757984^M
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-09 21:53:21.289507559
-0600 .^M
drwxr-xr-x. 4 root root        4096 2012-05-09 22:10:08.729553037
-0600 ..^M
-rw-------. 1 root root 11016160846 2012-05-09 21:53:21.020384817 -0600
vmcore^

21:53:21 - 19:55:50 

Dump filter/copy time:  1 hour, 57 minutes, 29 seconds


2. makedumpfile-v1.5.1, with kexec patch, using memory array logic, took
3 dumps to see variations in times:

ls -al --time-style=full-iso 127.0.0.1-2012-05-10-23:42:35^M
total 10444952^M
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-11 01:52:18.512639105
-0600 .^M
drwxr-xr-x. 6 root root        4096 2012-05-10 23:42:39.270955565
-0600 ..^M
-rw-------. 1 root root 10695618226 2012-05-11 01:52:18.479636812 -0600
vmcore^M

Dump filter/copy time: 2 hours, 9 minutes, 11 sec


127.0.0.1-2012-05-12-20:57:08:^M
total 10469304^M
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-12 23:05:39.082084132
-0600 .^M
drwxr-xr-x. 5 root root        4096 2012-05-12 20:57:12.627084279
-0600 ..^M
-rw-------. 1 root root 10720553208 2012-05-12 23:05:39.051082490 -0600
vmcore^M


Dump filter/copy time:  2 hours     8 minutes  26 seconds

27.0.0.1-2012-05-10-09:52:17:^M
total 10650776^M
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-10 12:04:22.456078284
-0600 .^M
drwxr-xr-x. 6 root root        4096 2012-05-10 09:52:22.068605263
-0600 ..^M
-rw-------. 1 root root 10906381384 2012-05-10 12:04:22.425076466 -0600
vmcore

Dump filter/copy time: 2 hours 13 minutes

So the dump times seem to vary + or minus 2-3 minutes, and the average
was about 2 hours 10 minutes, or 10-12 minutes longer than the
makedumpfile 1.4 dump time for a 4 TB system, when using a crashkernel
constrained to 384 MB, and the cyclic buffer feature is used.








_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

  reply	other threads:[~2012-12-18 21:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-16  8:15 [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC Atsushi Kumagai
2012-11-20 12:14 ` Lisa Mitchell
2012-11-20 16:35   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-11-20 13:03     ` Lisa Mitchell
2012-11-20 21:46       ` Vivek Goyal
2012-11-20 19:05         ` Lisa Mitchell
2012-11-21 13:54           ` Vivek Goyal
2012-11-22  0:49             ` Hatayama, Daisuke
2012-11-26 16:02               ` Vivek Goyal
2012-12-04 13:31   ` Lisa Mitchell
2012-12-07  5:26     ` Atsushi Kumagai
2012-12-10 21:06       ` Lisa Mitchell
2012-12-13  5:06         ` Atsushi Kumagai
2012-12-18 17:20           ` Lisa Mitchell [this message]
2012-12-21  6:19             ` Atsushi Kumagai

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=1355851243.13097.908.camel@lisamlinux.fc.hp.com \
    --to=lisa.mitchell@hp.com \
    --cc=jerry.hoemann@hp.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=kumagai-atsushi@mxc.nes.nec.co.jp \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox