From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:03:06 +0000 Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto Message-Id: <20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box> List-Id: References: <4A7A3A78.7080200@redhat.com> <4A7A506B.2060008@redhat.com> <4A7A70E5.2010204@redhat.com> <4A7A7A0F.6070906@redhat.com> <4A7A9E54.60705@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Amerigo Wang , Neil Horman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar , Anton Vorontsov , Andi Kleen , Bernhard Walle , Kexec Mailing List > 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. > > That can be written to (with enough privileges when no crash kernel is > loaded) reduce the amount of memory reserved by the crash kernel. > > Bernhard does that sound useful to you? > > Amerigo does that seem reasonable? 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? -Andi > -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.