Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:01:39 -0500 | From | Vivek Goyal <> | Subject | Re: kdump broken on 2.6.37-rc4 |
| |
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:52:11AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On 12/17/2010 11:50 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:46:08AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> On 12/17/2010 11:39 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >>> On 12/17/2010 10:21 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do we have actual testing for how high the 64-bit kernel will load? > >>>>> > >>>>> I will do some experiments on my box today and let you know. > >>>> > >>>> if bzImage is used, it is 896M. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Why? 896 MiB is a 32-bit kernel limitation which doesn't have anything > >>> to do with the bzImage format. > >>> > >>> So unless there is something going on here, I suspect you're just plain > >>> flat wrong. > >> > >> kexec-tools have some checking when it loads bzImage. > >> > > > > Yinghai, > > > > I think x86_64 might have just inherited the settings of 32bit without > > giving it too much of thought. At that point of time nobody bothered > > to load the kernel from high addresses. So these might be artificial > > limits. > > good point. will check that.
Yinghai,
On x86_64, I am not seeing "Crash kernel" entry in /proc/iomem.
I see following in dmesg.
"[ 0.000000] Reserving 128MB of memory at 64MB for crashkernel (System RAM: 5120MB)"
Following is my /proc/iomem.
# cat /proc/iomem 00000100-0000ffff : reserved 00010000-00096fff : System RAM 00097000-0009ffff : reserved 000c0000-000e7fff : pnp 00:0f 000e8000-000fffff : reserved 00100000-bffc283f : System RAM 01000000-015d1378 : Kernel code 015d1379-01aee00f : Kernel data 01bc8000-024b4c4f : Kernel bss bffc2840-bfffffff : reserved
So there is RAM available at the requested address still no entry for "Crash Kernel". This is both with 2.6.36 as well as 37-rc6 kernel. I am wondering if insert_resource() is failing here?
Thanks Vivek
| |