On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:56:00PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
>
> One big rang under 4G is working well till second kernel need more than 512M
> on bigger system with more memory.
Currently one range is allocated below 896MB (and not 4G). So if we extend
crashkernel=X to first try below
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:56:00PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 01:38:56PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> > So what I am saying that all our code is written
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:56:00PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 01:38:56PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
So what I am saying that all
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:56:00PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
One big rang under 4G is working well till second kernel need more than 512M
on bigger system with more memory.
Currently one range is allocated below 896MB (and not 4G). So if we extend
crashkernel=X to first try below 896MB
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 01:38:56PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> > So what I am saying that all our code is written assuming there is one
>> > single reserved range. Now if we need to
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 01:38:56PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > So what I am saying that all our code is written assuming there is one
> > single reserved range. Now if we need to reserve two ranges, then let
> > us make it generic to suppoprt
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So what I am saying that all our code is written assuming there is one
> single reserved range. Now if we need to reserve two ranges, then let
> us make it generic to suppoprt multiple ranges instead of hardcoding
> things and assume there can
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:32:23AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >
> >> - implement crashkernel_no_auto_low option to opt out of auto reserved
> >> low memory
> >
> > No, that is ugly.
>
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:12:46AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
> >> Can we just keep it separated?
> >
> > Kernel does not know about old kexec-tools or new kexec-tools. Neither
> > kernel can enforce what command line options are passed by user. So
> > kernel needs to define a clean interface
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
>> - implement crashkernel_no_auto_low option to opt out of auto reserved
>> low memory
>
> No, that is ugly.
...
>
> It's *you* want me to change "Crash kernel low" to "Crash kernel".
>
>
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> [..]
>> > You are just describing what your code does. There is no theme or
>> > justification behind this behavior. There is no uniformity. A user can
>> > question that so far
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
> > You are just describing what your code does. There is no theme or
> > justification behind this behavior. There is no uniformity. A user can
> > question that so far you used to honor last crashkernel= parameter and
> > suddenly
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
You are just describing what your code does. There is no theme or
justification behind this behavior. There is no uniformity. A user can
question that so far you used to honor last crashkernel= parameter and
suddenly in 3.9
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
You are just describing what your code does. There is no theme or
justification behind this behavior. There is no uniformity. A user can
question that so
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
- implement crashkernel_no_auto_low option to opt out of auto reserved
low memory
No, that is ugly.
...
It's *you* want me to change Crash kernel low
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:12:46AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
Can we just keep it separated?
Kernel does not know about old kexec-tools or new kexec-tools. Neither
kernel can enforce what command line options are passed by user. So
kernel needs to define a clean interface here which
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:32:23AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
- implement crashkernel_no_auto_low option to opt out of auto reserved
low memory
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
So what I am saying that all our code is written assuming there is one
single reserved range. Now if we need to reserve two ranges, then let
us make it generic to suppoprt multiple ranges instead of hardcoding
things and
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 01:38:56PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
So what I am saying that all our code is written assuming there is one
single reserved range. Now if we need to reserve two ranges, then let
us make it generic
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 01:38:56PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
So what I am saying that all our code is written assuming there is one
single reserved range.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:00:46PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >>
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 04:11:48PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
[..]
> > No, that is not just disable. User could want more like 128M instead of 72M.
So apart from swiotlb, are there other scenarios where we need to reserve
low memory (With main memory reserved high).
Thanks
Vivek
--
To
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:00:46PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> > aka:
> >> > old kexec-tools stay with "crashkernel=X"
>
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>
>> Actually we still support only one region that is could be high or low,
>> and that extra low is just for workaround
>> buggy system that does not support iommu with kdump.
>
> Well, crashkernel=X;high crashkernel=Y;low will reserve two
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> > aka:
>> > old kexec-tools stay with "crashkernel=X"
>> > new kexec-tools stay with
>> > 1. like old kexec tools
>> > 2. or
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > aka:
> > old kexec-tools stay with "crashkernel=X"
> > new kexec-tools stay with
> > 1. like old kexec tools
> > 2. or "crashkernel=X,high" or "crashkernel=X,high
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:42:09AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:19:42AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >> Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> >>
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> aka:
> old kexec-tools stay with "crashkernel=X"
> new kexec-tools stay with
> 1. like old kexec tools
> 2. or "crashkernel=X,high" or "crashkernel=X,high crashkernel=Y,low",
> Y could be 100M or 0 etc.
I keep the old logic like:
if there are
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:19:42AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> [..]
>> Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
>> ===
>> ---
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:19:42AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
> Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> ===
> --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++
Vivek found old kexec-tools does not work new kernel anymore.
So change back crashkernel= back to old behavoir, and add crashkernel_high=
to let user decide if buffer could be above 4G, and also new kexec-tools will
be needed.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu
---
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
Vivek found old kexec-tools does not work new kernel anymore.
So change back crashkernel= back to old behavoir, and add crashkernel_high=
to let user decide if buffer could be above 4G, and also new kexec-tools will
be needed.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org
---
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:19:42AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
===
--- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:19:42AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
===
---
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
aka:
old kexec-tools stay with crashkernel=X
new kexec-tools stay with
1. like old kexec tools
2. or crashkernel=X,high or crashkernel=X,high crashkernel=Y,low,
Y could be 100M or 0 etc.
I keep the old logic like:
if
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:42:09AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:19:42AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
aka:
old kexec-tools stay with crashkernel=X
new kexec-tools stay with
1. like old kexec tools
2. or crashkernel=X,high or crashkernel=X,high
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
aka:
old kexec-tools stay with crashkernel=X
new kexec-tools stay with
1. like old kexec
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
Actually we still support only one region that is could be high or low,
and that extra low is just for workaround
buggy system that does not support iommu with kdump.
Well, crashkernel=X;high crashkernel=Y;low will reserve
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:00:46PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
aka:
old kexec-tools stay
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 04:11:48PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
[..]
No, that is not just disable. User could want more like 128M instead of 72M.
So apart from swiotlb, are there other scenarios where we need to reserve
low memory (With main memory reserved high).
Thanks
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:00:46PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM,
42 matches
Mail list logo
