[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Patch 0/8] V5 Implement crashkernel=auto
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Michael Ellerman <> writes:
>> On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 23:15 -0400, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>>> V4 -> V5:
>>> - Rename the global functions, as suggested by Andrew.
>>> - Save some macros, as suggested by Andrew.
>>> - Change the high threshold, from 32G to 4G.
>>> - Change the low threshold on ppc, suggested by ppc developers.
>>> - Make the mm part as a seperate function, suggest by Eric.
>>> - Make the IA64 code more readable.
>>> - Reorder the patchset again, since review from mm people is done.
>>> V3 -> V4:
>>> - Reorder the patches.
>>> - Really free the reserved memory, instead of remapping it.
>>> (Thanks to KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki!)
>>> - Release the reserved memory resource when the size is 0.
>>> - Use strict_strtoul() instead of simple_strtoul().
>>> V2 -> V3:
>>> - Use more clever way to calculate reserved memory size, especially for IA64.
>>> - Add that patch that implements shrinking reserved memory
>>> V1 -> V2:
>>> - Use include/asm-generic/kexec.h, suggested by Neil.
>>> - Rename a local variable, suggested by Fenghua.
>>> - Fix some style problems found by
>>> - Unify the Kconfig docs.
>>> This series of patch implements automatically reserved memory for crashkernel,
>>> by introducing a new boot option "crashkernel=auto". This idea is from Neil.
>>> In case of breaking user-space applications, it modifies this boot option after
>>> it decides how much memory should be reserved.
>>> On different arch, the threshold and reserved memory size is different. Please
>>> refer patch 7/8 which contains an update for the documentation.
>>> Patch 8/8 implements shrinking reserved memory at run-time, which is useful
>>> when more than enough memory is reserved automatically.
>>> This patchset _is_ already tested on x86_64, IA64 and ppc64.
>> I don't want to sound like a micro-kernel zealot, I'm not, but I'm still
>> unconvinced as to why the auto logic needs to go in the kernel. What is
>> the compelling reason that the kernel needs to do this calculation vs
>> some userspace tool? We already have the syntax that allows defining a
>> different crash size depending on the size of RAM.
>> The shrinking of reserved memory is cool.
> Michael I am in agreement with you.
> The shrinking is good.
> If we can come up with some simple and generic logic that we can use
> to reserve memory then I am in favor. However all this patchset is
> doing is moving user space specific arbitrary hacks into the kernel we
> do that perfectly well on the command line. Having the amount to
> reserve be arch specific is complete non-sense and a major maintenance
> pain.

Ok, since you guys think we should not do sth in kernel space if we can
do it in user space, why not removing the extended crash kernel syntax??


I am *quite* sure this can be done in user space too. In theory, only
you need is just:


all the rest things can be done in user space. Enjoy!

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-31 05:27    [W:0.047 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site