From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by bombadil.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1MZWxM-0006bs-8n for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:26:36 +0000 Message-ID: <4A7C9BF1.8070700@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:26:09 +0200 From: Bernhard Walle MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto References: <4A7A3A78.7080200@redhat.com> <4A7A506B.2060008@redhat.com> <4A7A70E5.2010204@redhat.com> <4A7A7A0F.6070906@redhat.com> <4A7A9E54.60705@redhat.com> <20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box> In-Reply-To: <20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box> 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: Andi Kleen Cc: Neil Horman , tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Amerigo Wang , Kexec Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Anton Vorontsov , Ingo Molnar Andi Kleen schrieb: >> 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. The idea of Eric was to shrink the reserved memory in an init script. I doubt that the 1 TB machine will have any problems or performance issue when booting with (1 TB - 32 GB) memory. > 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? Try it out. No chance for 64-128MB crashkernel on "medium" IA64 machines. Regards, Bernhard _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec