From: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@google.com>,
ebiederm@xmission.com, mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v2 2/2] s390: Add architecture code for unmapping crashkernel memory
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:48:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1316076483.3526.4.camel@br98xy6r> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110914182902.GA32658@redhat.com>
Hello Vivek, Andrew,
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 14:29 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:58:28AM +0200, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> > > Why not make this unconditional, for all architectures which support
> > > hugepages? ie:
> > >
> > > #ifdef HPAGE_SIZE
> > > #define KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN HPAGE_SIZE
> > > #else
> > > #define KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN PAGE_SIZE
> > > #endif
> >
> > > in include/linux/kexec.h?
> > >
> > > IOW, what are the compromises here?
> >
> > If we would do it that way, crashkernel memory on architectures that
> > support large pages but do not support unmapping of crashkernel memory
> > would always be aligned to HPAGE_SIZE. But only PAGE_SIZE alignment
> > would be necessary in that case.
> >
> > If that is acceptable I have no problem to define that unconditional for
> > all architectures. Vivek what do you think?
>
> As PAGE_SIZE alignment is sufficient for rest of the architecture, I
> am fine with keeping it in arch dependent files.
Ok fine. So I will resend the two patches including Andrew's
resource_size() fix and keep KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN definition
architecture dependent.
Michael
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-15 8:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-13 13:26 [patch v2 0/2] kdump: Allow removal of page tables for crashkernel memory Michael Holzheu
2011-09-13 13:26 ` [patch v2 1/2] kdump: Add infrastructure for unmapping " Michael Holzheu
2011-09-13 13:40 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-13 13:26 ` [patch v2 2/2] s390: Add architecture code " Michael Holzheu
2011-09-13 21:52 ` Andrew Morton
2011-09-14 8:58 ` Michael Holzheu
2011-09-14 18:29 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-15 8:48 ` Michael Holzheu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1316076483.3526.4.camel@br98xy6r \
--to=holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox