From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C8A3C00140 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:46:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=o5XzHJR7GBtc5kP3Qd/a1N4pVhKft1oSxOCcl70lO7g=; b=N6BT52S0XCUuqU IcNqx44yr+8d4V6zLnLn+peWfsypWqxJG6+LDqC8c48aVt1tIaf+plsNpdxyPobZhN5JKA/L1I9vH AfnAAtMjPS9CYiCsSgS7BF2xm3I+lxnZYe4we0fMb6UzHaljRWO6QurYbyUJKoHp7lJ3rPptb4s88 UWYEqyhhutx0zyOk3OMcMeZbl1iBX17fQvslfvsM1657eLWFBVe2ALAuUa67jA+53ApidmXC5QCAa 8oDnx4HbA2O0BBrv0j9WhnZoWh7UXlTnm5OAq/QxW0T1WpiXMaOEyWxXLgQKBf74jKI8jD1GKEovb aDzJ+nK1SWMx0yqvb1/A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1oLwKt-000gtr-Ft; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:46:07 +0000 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1oLwKq-000gdT-Bw for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:46:05 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1660178759; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mb6LvVDNkIGuE2f7Qq0kKvwOfpEUqHsNTOyvM74HAMA=; b=W4h2YZjUJDfKWIGWUVHpzwV1PMJh7HAdupHd85BzxZ/DN4tN2lsyYnVZF6aMHneyeAPglM w+avF1j9iWOdQWoUQuHjrDMaJ9rOCXC+F3Lel/YoAc79nkbyVFjiMoIE6PQAnUSjarbmnM s4O+3kJ/ZA88wdwKZZlIA+zmWNMGTJE= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-482-DZFnXh6RPGyR82J4DCjfhw-1; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 20:45:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: DZFnXh6RPGyR82J4DCjfhw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60BF185A596; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:45:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-12-110.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.110]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA4901121319; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:45:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 08:45:54 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Donny Xia Cc: dyoung@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Question about the size of VMCOREINFO Message-ID: <20220811004554.GE373960@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220810_174604_550880_98E443D7 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 14.90 ) X-BeenThere: kexec@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list 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" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+kexec=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi, On 08/10/22 at 03:39pm, Donny Xia wrote: > Hello Kdump Maintainers, > > We utilize the kexec and kdump feature heavily to collect the crash dump > file when the kernel crashes. We write some customized values into > VMCOREINFO and we find that eventually the size of the data we write > exceeds the size of VMCOREINFO. I find that the size of VMCOREINFO is one > page, which I believe is 4k. I am wondering is there any specific reason to > choose this size? Is it possible to use a bigger number? Any suggestions > about it would be appreciated. No specific reason. Just our current usage of vmcoreinfo_data is enough to cover our need. I don't see why you can't enlarge it to, e.g 2 pages or more. Have you tried? E.g allocate more pages and change VMCOREINFO_BYTES to the corresponding value. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec