From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933131AbZHGTUY (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 15:20:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933112AbZHGTUX (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 15:20:23 -0400 Received: from relay2.mail.vrmd.de ([81.28.224.28]:41126 "EHLO relay2.mail.vrmd.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933108AbZHGTUW (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 15:20:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4A7C7AEA.7080800@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:05:14 +0200 From: Bernhard Walle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Amerigo Wang CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman , "Eric W. Biederman" , Andi Kleen , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Fenghua Yu , Ingo Molnar , Anton Vorontsov Subject: Re: [Patch 4/7] ia64: implement crashkernel=auto References: <20090806062125.5578.72123.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090806062211.5578.59301.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20090806062211.5578.59301.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=DDAF6454 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Relay-User: bernhard@bwalle.de Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Amerigo Wang schrieb: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE > +#ifdef KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVED_SIZE > +#undef KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVED_SIZE > +#endif > +#define KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVED_SIZE (1ULL<<28) /* 256M */ > +#include > +#endif > + > extern struct kimage *ia64_kimage; IMO that's way too small for practial use on IA64 systems. For SLES11, which is based on Linux 2.6.28 IIRC, we use following memory size values in the YaST2 kdump module which configures the crashkernel parameter (this is YCP syntax, but I think everybody understands it): > // bnc #446480 - Fine-tune kdump memory proposal > if ((Arch::ia64()) && (total_memory >= 1024)) > { > integer total_memory_gigabyte = total_memory/1024; > if ((total_memory_gigabyte >= 1) && (total_memory_gigabyte <12)) > alocated_memory = "256"; > else if ((total_memory_gigabyte >= 12) && (total_memory_gigabyte <128)) > alocated_memory = "512"; > else if ((total_memory_gigabyte >= 128) && (total_memory_gigabyte <256)) > alocated_memory = "768"; > else if ((total_memory_gigabyte >= 256) && (total_memory_gigabyte <378)) > alocated_memory = "1024"; > else if ((total_memory_gigabyte >= 378) && (total_memory_gigabyte <512)) > alocated_memory = "1536"; > else if ((total_memory_gigabyte >= 512) && (total_memory_gigabyte <768)) > alocated_memory = "2048"; > else if (total_memory_gigabyte >= 768) > alocated_memory = "3072"; > } I got that assumtions from SGI (and they are known to have large IA64 systems) and I think the values were tested. But IMO it doesn't make sense to put such policy decisions in the kernel. I see no advantage for that. The average user doesn't have to write crashkernel parameters, they use the values that the distribution ships. Or do you think that an average user knows what a UUID of a file system is just to specify the correct root partition? Regards, Bernhard