From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@gmx.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 4/7] ia64: implement crashkernel=auto
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:02:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A7F8DB2.5040501@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A7C7AEA.7080800@gmx.de>
Bernhard Walle wrote:
> 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 <asm-generic/kexec.h>
>> +#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.
>
Hmm, thanks for this.
> 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?
>
The advantage is that we can provide a clever policy which can't be
implemented with current mechanism, e.g. 32nd of phy mem, as proposed by
Eric.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-10 3:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-06 6:19 [Patch 0/7] V2 Implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 6:19 ` [Patch 1/7] x86: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 6:19 ` [Patch 2/7] x86: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 6:19 ` [Patch 3/7] ia64: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 6:19 ` [Patch 4/7] ia64: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-07 19:05 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-10 3:02 ` Amerigo Wang [this message]
2009-08-07 19:15 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-07 19:16 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-06 6:20 ` [Patch 5/7] powerpc: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 6:20 ` [Patch 6/7] powerpc: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-06 6:20 ` [Patch 7/7] doc: update the kdump document Amerigo Wang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-08-05 11:19 [Patch 0/7] Implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 11:19 ` [Patch 4/7] ia64: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-05 13:46 ` Neil Horman
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=4A7F8DB2.5040501@redhat.com \
--to=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=avorontsov@ru.mvista.com \
--cc=bernhard.walle@gmx.de \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.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