From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754528Ab3KNP0s (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:26:48 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9210 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754177Ab3KNP0n (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:26:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:26:23 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: jerry.hoemann@hp.com, rob@landley.net, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, matt.fleming@intel.com, yinghai@kernel.org, penberg@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Early use of boot service memory Message-ID: <20131114152623.GC3913@redhat.com> References: <1384222558-38527-1-git-send-email-jerry.hoemann@hp.com> <20131113224503.GB25344@anatevka.fc.hp.com> <52840206.5020006@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52840206.5020006@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:49:42PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: [..] > In other words, allocating the crashkernel high has ALL the advantages, > plus a few more, and NONE of the disadvantages. It allocates low memory for swiotlb. So that extra 72M allocation is the disadvantage. With so many virtual machines on a single host, I don't want to reserve extra 72MB on each virtual machine while I could easily do away with memory reservation below 4G. So I do think that first trying memory below 896M, then below 4G and then above 4G makes sense and we should modify crashkernel=X to handle that. Thanks Vivek