Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756169Ab3JXTNn (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:13:43 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]:60704 "EHLO mail-ie0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755407Ab3JXTNm (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:13:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20131024110117.GB3033@dhcp16-109.nay.redhat.com> References: <1381751200-27376-1-git-send-email-chaowang@redhat.com> <20131015144810.GI31215@redhat.com> <20131018123837.GB2277@redhat.com> <20131021151643.GA20669@redhat.com> <20131024110117.GB3033@dhcp16-109.nay.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:13:41 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5tCXzaaTj203XpupOcBJ7FJZ9ak Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, kdump: crashkernel=X try to reserve below 896M first, then try below 4G, then MAXMEM From: Yinghai Lu To: WANG Chao Cc: Vivek Goyal , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Pekka Enberg , Jacob Shin , Andrew Morton , "Eric W. Biederman" , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1668 Lines: 46 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:01 AM, WANG Chao wrote: > > I think crashkernel=XM,high is really supposed to be used when user indeed > want to reserve from high. No. Keep the all 64bit to stay high, make thing simple. instead of some low and some use high. > > Like Vivek said, failing at different point shouldn't be a problem. > That's an incorrect configuration. When crashkernel=1G,high, old > kexec-tools still fails the same way. That could cause confusion, in > your word. If it would fail later, we should let it fail early as possible. > > Let me put it in an example, a user want to utilize this new kernel > feature to reserve 1G for crash kernel but not upgrade kexec-tools, > > - W/o this patch: > First he would try crashkernel=1G, but failed to reserve. Second time, > he goes with crashkernel=1G,high, reservation is fine but kexec fails > to load. Upgrading kexec-tools is essential to him. > > - W/ this patch: > First he would try crashkernel=1G, reservation is ok but kexec fails > to load the same way as the case of crashkernel=1G,high. Upgrading > kexec-tools is essential to him. > > The point is old kexec-tools can't load high, no matter by what kind of > crashkernel cmdline to reserve at high. old kexec-tools could work cross 892M in some case. That will confuse the user, as it works some time on some setup, but does not work on other setup. Thanks Yinghai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/