On 2020/9/3 1:13, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 09:08:56PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kdump/kdump.rst
>> b/Documentation/admin-guide/kdump/kdump.rst
>> index 2da65fef2a1c..4b58f97351d5 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kdump/kdum
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 09:08:56PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kdump/kdump.rst
> b/Documentation/admin-guide/kdump/kdump.rst
> index 2da65fef2a1c..4b58f97351d5 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kdump/kdump.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kdump/kdum
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 03:07:04PM +0800, chenzhou wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> index a8e34d97a894..4df18c7ea438 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> }
>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 03:07:04PM +0800, chenzhou wrote:
> On 2020/8/10 14:03, Dave Young wrote:
> >>> Previously I remember we talked about to use similar logic as X86, but I
> >>> remember you mentioned on some arm64 platform there could be no low
> >>> memory at all. Is this not a problem now
Hi Catalin,
On 2020/8/19 20:03, Dave Young wrote:
> On 08/18/20 at 03:07pm, chenzhou wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/8/10 14:03, Dave Young wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
> Previously I remember we talked about to use similar logic as X86, but I
> remember you mentioned on some arm64 platform there could be no
On 08/18/20 at 03:07pm, chenzhou wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/8/10 14:03, Dave Young wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>> Previously I remember we talked about to use similar logic as X86, but I
> >>> remember you mentioned on some arm64 platform there could be no low
> >>> memory at all. Is this not a problem now
On 2020/8/10 14:03, Dave Young wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Previously I remember we talked about to use similar logic as X86, but I
>>> remember you mentioned on some arm64 platform there could be no low
>>> memory at all. Is this not a problem now for the fallback? Just be
>>> curious, thanks for the
Hi,
> > Previously I remember we talked about to use similar logic as X86, but I
> > remember you mentioned on some arm64 platform there could be no low
> > memory at all. Is this not a problem now for the fallback? Just be
> > curious, thanks for the update, for the common part looks good.
> Hi
On 08/10/20 at 11:28am, chenzhou wrote:
> On 2020/8/8 18:02, Dave Young wrote:
> > On 08/01/20 at 09:08pm, Chen Zhou wrote:
> >> Now the behavior of crashkernel=X has been changed, which tries low
> >> allocation in ZONE_DMA, and fall back to high allocation if it fails.
> >>
> >> If requized size
On 2020/8/8 18:02, Dave Young wrote:
> On 08/01/20 at 09:08pm, Chen Zhou wrote:
>> Now the behavior of crashkernel=X has been changed, which tries low
>> allocation in ZONE_DMA, and fall back to high allocation if it fails.
>>
>> If requized size X is too large and leads to very little free memory
On 08/01/20 at 09:08pm, Chen Zhou wrote:
> Now the behavior of crashkernel=X has been changed, which tries low
> allocation in ZONE_DMA, and fall back to high allocation if it fails.
>
> If requized size X is too large and leads to very little free memory
> in ZONE_DMA after low allocation, the sy
11 matches
Mail list logo
