On Thu, 24 May 2018 15:26:27 +0800 Dave Young <dyo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/24/18 at 08:57am, Petr Tesarik wrote: >[...] > > What is "a very minimal initrd"? Last time I had to make a significant > > adjustment to the estimation for openSUSE, this was caused by growing > > user-space requirements (systemd in this case, but I don't want to > > start flamewars on that topic, please). > > Still I think we have agreement and same feeling about the userspace > memory requirement. I think although it is hard, we have been still > trying to shrink the initramfs memory use. > > Besides of distribution use, why people can not use some minimal > initrd? For example only a basic shell and some necessary tools and > basic storage eg. raw disks supported, and he/she can just collect the > panic infomation by himself in a shell. Again, I'm having trouble with the definition of a "minimal initrd" and also with the definition of a "workstation". I have already seen a sad case where kdump started going OOM after connecting a 4K monitor, because, well, it needed a bigger framebuffer... OTOH you wrote in another mail that RH has tested some values on a variety of hardware, so you seem to have a clue. Good for you. I still believe it is moving policy into the kernel. Based on past experience, I expect that certain users will argue that "crashkernel=auto" should work out of the box on their HPE Superdome with 600+ LUNs attached... As you wrote elsewhere in the thread: > I means this patch is not trying to force add a fixed value for crashkernel > in kernel code. It provides another way one can use on kernel build time > the value just works. I don't mind if it is added, although I don't find it very useful. Petr T
