From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756224AbZHGV0a (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:26:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756065AbZHGV03 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:26:29 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:46769 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753699AbZHGV03 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:26:29 -0400 X-Authenticated: #2360897 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+lafVas2alARIaQnJIiD7wLWjBxpwXCOwZNmbKGW MNPcfw5x8T/F9A Message-ID: <4A7C9BF1.8070700@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:26:09 +0200 From: Bernhard Walle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: "Eric W. Biederman" , Amerigo Wang , Neil Horman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar , Anton Vorontsov , Kexec Mailing List Subject: Re: [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto References: <4A7A3A78.7080200@redhat.com> <4A7A506B.2060008@redhat.com> <4A7A70E5.2010204@redhat.com> <4A7A7A0F.6070906@redhat.com> <4A7A9E54.60705@redhat.com> <20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box> In-Reply-To: <20090807210306.GA25609@basil.fritz.box> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.64 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen schrieb: >> As an initial approximation I would use a 32nd of low memory. > > That means a 1TB machine will have a 32GB crash kernel. > > Surely that's excessive?!? > > It would be repeating all the same mistakes people made with hash tables > several years ago. The idea of Eric was to shrink the reserved memory in an init script. I doubt that the 1 TB machine will have any problems or performance issue when booting with (1 TB - 32 GB) memory. > It doesn't sound reasonable to Andi. > > Why do you even want to grow the crash kernel that much? Is there > any real problem with a 64-128MB crash kernel? Try it out. No chance for 64-128MB crashkernel on "medium" IA64 machines. Regards, Bernhard