Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758964Ab3DASdi (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:33:38 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:43564 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758062Ab3DASdh (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:33:37 -0400 Message-ID: <5159D2E9.7080707@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:33:13 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vivek Goyal CC: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , WANG Chao , "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: use Crash kernel for Crash kernel low References: <20130320163131.GE2273@redhat.com> <1363807329-24975-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <20130325194245.GA7357@redhat.com> <20130326181418.GA6775@redhat.com> <20130401133428.GA13499@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130401133428.GA13499@redhat.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3062 Lines: 69 On 04/01/2013 06:34 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 02:14:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:50:18PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote: >>>> So it is a forgone conclusion that these new kernel changes to >>>> crashkernel=X in 3.9 are incompatible with older kexec-tools and one >>>> needs to upgrade kexec-tools. >>> >>> I thought that you and hpa all agreed that user need to update kexec-tools with >>> new kernel v3.9. It that still right? >> >> I can update kexec-tools and I don't have problems with that. I am only >> concerned about some xyz user complaining that new kernel stopped working >> with old kexec-tools and then possibly face the rant from Linus about >> breaking user space. :-) >> >> To me we could maintain backward compatibility by retaining the existing >> behavior of crashkernle=X. That is look for specificied memory below >> 896M first and then go higher. >> >> And hide new semantics behind new kernel parameters or by extending >> existing parameter (say crashkernel=X:search_high_first) to specify how >> to search for reserved memory. >> >> In both the cases we should probably retain the logic of auto reserving >> low memory for software iotlb and let user opt out if there is no need. >> >> So we don't have a strong reason that why we should break existing >> kexec-tools. So I would prefer not to break it. >> >> But I think this is hpa's decision. > > hpa, > > ping. Any thoughts on this? Pardon me while I retch. The whole kdump dependency mess is making me sick to my stomach. The fundamental problem you have is that the user has to take an action that doesn't make any sense, because there isn't any sane method to backflow the requirements from the crashkernel to the command line. The only way I can think how to deal with that in a sane way that doesn't require that the user has to understand a whole bunch of things about their system that no user should ever have to be burdened with is to have the packaging system feed back information about the crashkernel and kexec-tools that will be used. That interface probably needs serious architecting. I wouldn't object to crashkernel=,