From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:37:03 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A7A7A0F.6070906@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1bpmtqxjh.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> writes:
>
>
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>> Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No the crashdump mechanism is useless because user space is already
>>>>> broken and unusable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Again, why broken?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> To get a stock stat drive by hand I had to list about 5 kernel modules
>>> in the right magic order in /etc/kdump.conf
>>>
>>> Neither mount by label or mount by uuid when specified in /etc/kdump.conf
>>> I had to hack mkdumprd to get an initrd that even finds the proper disk
>>> to mount.
>>>
>>>
>> You are saying that there is some difficulty to make a initrd for kdump, but I
>> am sorry that I can't see any relations between this and my patch. What is your
>> point here?
>>
>
> You are trying to make it easier for end users.
>
> I am saying the problem is in user space.
>
> I am saying also that the kernel doesn't have a clue what you are
> going to load with kexec on panic to handle panics. Maybe it is a
> custom stand alone binary that only needs 5K. So the kernel doesn't
> have a clue what the right size to reserve.
>
So what? If you have 8G memory, would you mind 128M-5K memory to be wasted?
The kernel doesn't have to reserve the exact amount of memory that a
kexec kernel will use, it just finds a big enough size for all cases
which already assumes the physical memory is large enough.
> I think if what you were proposing was part of some coherent story for
> a complete implementation I would consider it more. Instead this just
> appears to be a reaction to how frustrating the user space
> implementation is, and fixing things in the kernel instead of in user
> space.
>
Yes, exactly, in fact I am doing another part which will allow us to
take back of the reserved memory at run-time.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-06 6:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-05 11:19 [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 1/7] x86: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:41 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 14:45 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-05 20:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 1:55 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 7:15 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-06 7:44 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 7:56 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 2/7] x86: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:43 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-06 1:45 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 22:51 ` Yu, Fenghua
2009-08-06 1:56 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 3/7] ia64: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:49 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 4/7] ia64: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:46 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 5/7] powerpc: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:49 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 11:20 ` [Patch 6/7] powerpc: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:50 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 11:20 ` [Patch 7/7] doc: update the kdump document Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:33 ` [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-05 14:04 ` Neil Horman
2009-08-05 22:57 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 2:05 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 2:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 3:39 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 3:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 5:57 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 6:14 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 6:37 ` Amerigo Wang [this message]
2009-08-06 8:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 8:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-06 9:04 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-07 19:13 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-06 9:11 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-07 19:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-07 21:03 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-07 21:26 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-07 22:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-07 21:31 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-07 22:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-10 3:11 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 1:39 ` Amerigo Wang
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=4A7A7A0F.6070906@redhat.com \
--to=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avorontsov@ru.mvista.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nhorman@redhat.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.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