From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10] helo=mail.zytor.com) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PXftf-0002oh-RF for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:11:52 +0000 Message-ID: <4D1A4469.2060000@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:11:21 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: How does kdump deal with trampoline allocation? References: <4D18F798.4010708@zytor.com> <20101228000651.GB4142@redhat.com> <4D192BC3.8040802@zytor.com> 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: Yinghai Lu , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , Vivek Goyal On 12/27/2010 11:40 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> OK, that's straightforward. That presumably means that the low 640K is >> marked unused in the memory map that memblock sees during early startup. >> That fits very cleanly with the patches I'm doing. > > Additionally we typically start with maxcpus=1 so we don't strictly > need the trampoline to start other cpus. > Well, the trampoline is optional only on 32 bits, and with my changes, it would be unconditional. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec