From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753593AbZHFBhi (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:37:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753555AbZHFBhg (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:37:36 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:57687 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753367AbZHFBhf (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:37:35 -0400 Message-ID: <4A7A3445.60903@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:39:17 +0800 From: Amerigo Wang User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric W. Biederman" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar , Anton Vorontsov Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto References: <20090805112123.6552.73574.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Amerigo Wang writes: > > >> This series of patch implements automatically reserved memory for crashkernel, >> by introducing a new boot option "crashkernel=auto". This idea is from Neil. >> >> In case of breaking user-space applications, it modifies this boot option after >> it decides how much memory should be reserved. >> >> On different arch, the threshold and reserved memory size is different. Please >> refer patch 7/7 which contains an update for the documentation. >> >> Note: This patchset was only tested on x86_64 with differernt memory sizes. >> > > This seems like a silly hard code. Especially for a feature distros don't > care enough about to implement a working initrd for. > > Has anyone bothered to justify those large amounts of memory? > Where does the 128M go? > If 128M is too big, we can make it to be 64M, that is no problem. I am very open to this. :) > Please pardon me for being a cynic but I don't see the command line option > being the bottleneck for real users to make this work. > > Well, take /me as an example, to be honest, I still have no idea how much memory I should reserve for s390/sh, if I would use kdump on sh, it *is* my bottleneck. Thanks.