public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, WANG Chao <chaowang@redhat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86, kdump: Retore crashkernel= to allocate low
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:47:34 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130403174734.GG5939@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE9FiQXg2+DCd0BGRyKo4KWsMXdPZz74OjpQrUP=ciok2AZhuA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:32:23AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> - implement crashkernel_no_auto_low option to opt out of auto reserved
> >>   low memory
> >
> > No, that is ugly.
> ...
> >
> > It's *you* want me to change "Crash kernel low" to "Crash kernel".
> >
> > Do we need to drop second patch? So will still keep
> > "Crash kernel low" in /proc/iomem?
> 
> also we can drop the last patch and keep "crashkernel_high=" and
> "crashkernel_low="

as hpa mentioned, we should express memory reservation and dependency
of it in crashkernel= options. So introducing crashkernel_high or
crashkernel_low, just because you we don't want to support multiple
ranges is a kludge.

> 
> as you even like to introduce "crashkernel_no_auto_low".

This is a kludge too for ease of use. At least it does not spoil 
crashkernel= space and also works with existing crashkernel=X
parameters.

You know what, I think multiple ranges has another problem. And that is
all of the kexec/kdump code is written thinking there is one contiguous
reserved range.

        /* Verify we have a valid entry point */
        if ((entry < crashk_res.start) || (entry > crashk_res.end)) {
                result = -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
                goto out;
        }


Also look at crash_shrink_memory().

So what I am saying that all our code is written assuming there is one
single reserved range. Now if we need to reserve two ranges, then let
us make it generic to suppoprt multiple ranges instead of hardcoding
things and assume there can be 2 ranges. That will be a more generic
solution.

So how about this.

- In 3.9, just implement crashkernel=X;high. Don't auto reserve any low
  memory. Support reservation of single range only. It could be either
  high or low.

- Those who are using iommu, they can use crashkernel=X;high. Old code
  can continue to use crashkernel=X and get memory reserved in low
  memory areas.

- In 3.10 add a feature to support multiple crash reserved ranges.

Thanks
Vivek

  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-03 17:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-04-02 17:19 [PATCH 0/4] x86, kdump: Fix crashkernel high with old kexec-tools Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 17:19 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86, kdump: Set crashkernel_low automatically Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 17:19 ` [PATCH 2/4] kexec: use Crash kernel for Crash kernel low Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 17:19 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86, kdump: Retore crashkernel= to allocate low Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 18:06   ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 18:42     ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 18:49       ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 19:11         ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 20:00           ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 20:11             ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 20:25               ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 20:36               ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-03 13:18                 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-03 17:12                   ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-03 17:32                     ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-03 17:47                       ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2013-04-03 20:38                         ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-03 21:00                           ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-04  0:56                             ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-04 13:41                               ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-04 13:51                               ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-03 17:36                     ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 19:09       ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 20:04         ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 17:19 ` [PATCH] x86, kdump: Change crashkernel_high/low= to crashkernel=;high/low Yinghai Lu

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=20130403174734.GG5939@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=chaowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
    /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