From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965433AbeEXIaI (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2018 04:30:08 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:55688 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965175AbeEXI36 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2018 04:29:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:29:51 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Dave Young Cc: Petr Tesarik , dzickus@redhat.com, Neil Horman , Tony Luck , Michael Ellerman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , "Eric W. Biederman" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Hari Bathini , Cong Wang , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdump: add default crashkernel reserve kernel config options Message-ID: <20180524082951.GG24627@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> References: <20180521025337.GA4627@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20180521120215.117d963a7619eb0d1f54bced@linux-foundation.org> <20180523070641.GA1689@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <877enucqr0.fsf@xmission.com> <20180523222236.5a96732e@ezekiel.suse.cz> <20180524014905.GB2031@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20180524085708.31aa311d@ezekiel.suse.cz> <20180524072627.GA1940@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20180524075615.GC1940@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180524075615.GC1940@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/24/18 at 03:56pm, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Instead of setting aside a significant chunk of memory nobody can use, > > > > [...] reserve a significant chunk of memory that the kernel is prevented > > > > from using [...], but applications are free to use it. > > > > > > That works great, because user space pages are filtered out in the > > > common case, so they can be used freely by the panic kernel. > > > > Good suggestion. I have been reading that posts already at the same time before I saw > > this reply from you :) > > > > That could be a good idea and worth to discuss more. I cced Hari > > already in the thread. Hari, is it possible for you to extend your > > idea to general use, ie. shared by both kdump and fadump? Anyway I > > think that is another topic we can discuss separately. > > BTW, I remember we had some Red hat internal discussion about CMA previously > there is a problem, that is we have crashkernel=,high for reserving high > memory and ,low for low memory, we were not sure if CMA can handle this > case. Pratyush ever investigated this too see if CMA can be used so that we can dynamically adjust the crashkernel memory after boot. The result is CMA is not good. I doubt fadump can really make use of CMA to reserve crashkernel. Thanks Baoquan