From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lEsYW-00062C-O0 for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:42:13 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-f197.google.com with SMTP id z8so948964pfn.6 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 03:42:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:41:41 +0800 From: Coiby Xu Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] i40e: don't open i40iw client for kdump Message-ID: <20210224114141.ziywca4dvn5fs6js@Rk> References: <20210222070701.16416-1-coxu@redhat.com> <20210222070701.16416-5-coxu@redhat.com> <20210223122207.08835e0b@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210223122207.08835e0b@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, Jesse Brandeburg , open list , Tony Nguyen , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, "David S. Miller" Hi Jakub, Thank you for reviewing the patch! On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:07:01 +0800 Coiby Xu wrote: >> i40iw consumes huge amounts of memory. For example, on a x86_64 machine, >> i40iw consumed 1.5GB for Intel Corporation Ethernet Connection X722 for >> for 1GbE while "craskernel=auto" only reserved 160M. With the module >> parameter "resource_profile=2", we can reduce the memory usage of i40iw >> to ~300M which is still too much for kdump. >> >> Disabling the client registration would spare us the client interface >> operation open , i.e., i40iw_open for iwarp/uda device. Thus memory is >> saved for kdump. >> >> Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu > >Is i40iw or whatever the client is not itself under a CONFIG which >kdump() kernels could be reasonably expected to disable? > I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you mean we shouldn't disable i40iw for kdump? -- Best regards, Coiby _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec