From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1MZXk5-0006Vt-G5 for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:16:57 +0000 References: <20090805112123.6552.73574.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090805140408.GJ7259@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <4A7A3A78.7080200@redhat.com> <4A7A506B.2060008@redhat.com> <4A7A70E5.2010204@redhat.com> <4A7A7A0F.6070906@redhat.com> <4A7A9E54.60705@redhat.com> <4A7C9D48.3030405@gmx.de> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:16:43 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4A7C9D48.3030405@gmx.de> (Bernhard Walle's message of "Fri\, 07 Aug 2009 23\:31\:52 +0200") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto 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: Bernhard Walle Cc: Neil Horman , tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Amerigo Wang , Kexec Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Anton Vorontsov , Ingo Molnar Bernhard Walle writes: > Eric W. Biederman schrieb: >> >> With the current set of crashkernel= options we are asking the >> distribution installer to perform magic. Moving as much of this logic >> into a normal init script for better maintenance is desirable. > > Not (necessarily) the installer but the program that configures kdump. > system-config-kdump on Red Hat, YaST on SUSE. Right. Somehow I thought YaST was the installer my mistake. >> Bernhard does that sound useful to you? > > I don't see any problems. I don't know how much effort is it to free > already reserved crashkernel memory, but I guess it's not really > complicated. Right. > Maybe that "1/32" should be specified on the command line like > > > crashkernel=>>5 > > (for 1/32*system_memory == system_memory>>5), OTOH I have no real strong > opinion. The idea is for the system to give us as much as it can stand and userspace gives the rest back. The maximum memory any particular kernel can stand to give up is a tractable kernel level problem, and we can make it autotune like any other kernel tunable. What a crash kernel needs totally depends on the implementation. Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec