public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:11:48 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A7A9E54.60705@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1iqh1nxv3.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> writes:
>   
>> Yes, exactly, in fact I am doing another part which will allow us to take back
>> of the reserved memory at run-time.
>>     
>
> Alright. Let's look at that.
>
> I would make the restriction you can't resize the area while a kexec
> on panic image is loaded, and growing the area would not be a
> realistic option.
>
>   
Sure, I have no plan to do growing reserved memory at run-time... only 
freeing  or shrinking it...

> If crash_kernel=auto happens in the context of being able to shrink
> the area from user space the definition is simple.  We reserve as much
> memory as we think we can without affecting performance, stability,
> reliability.
>
> We can use an initial approximation of perhaps 1/32nd of low memory
> (aka directly mapped memory), and I don't see a point in making the
> code arch dependent at all.  We should run the size approximation past
> the folks on linux-mm as they are more likely to know how much memory
> reduction we can tolerate without problems.
>
>   

Yup, agreed.

> We can then plan on user space saying hey that is more than I need:
> shrink that, and load the kexec on panic kernel.
>   

Exactly... but the interface still needs to be discussed...

Currently, we have two options:

1) add a new flag to kexec_load(2) to tell the kernel to shrink the memory;
2) use /proc/iomem, let the user to decide which and how much of the 
reserved memory should be removed.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.



  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-08-06  9:10 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
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 [this message]
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=4A7A9E54.60705@redhat.com \
    --to=amwang@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.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