From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1MZWan-0002jB-7G for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:03:17 +0000 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 23:03:06 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto Message-ID: <20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box> References: <4A7A3A78.7080200@redhat.com> <4A7A506B.2060008@redhat.com> <4A7A70E5.2010204@redhat.com> <4A7A7A0F.6070906@redhat.com> <4A7A9E54.60705@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Neil Horman , tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Amerigo Wang , Bernhard Walle , Kexec Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Anton Vorontsov , Ingo Molnar > 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