Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:58:46 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, bp@suse.de,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, jkosina@suse.cz, vgoyal@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yinghai@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel
 low memory reserving failed
Message-ID: <20150721085846.GA23020@dhcp-128-28.nay.redhat.com>
References: <1437304064-9916-1-git-send-email-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20150719145320.GB9968@dhcp-17-102.nay.redhat.com>
 <20150721073123.GA30649@dhcp-129-220.nay.redhat.com>
 <20150721075011.GC16747@dhcp-128-28.nay.redhat.com>
 <20150721082343.GC30649@dhcp-129-220.nay.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150721082343.GC30649@dhcp-129-220.nay.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 800
Lines: 16

On 07/21/15 at 04:23pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > I think so. the reason why ,low is introduced is swiotlb or pci device
> > need low memory when crashkernel is reserved above 4G. Low memory is
> > necessary when ,high is specified unless user can make sure their
> > machines don't need low memory and specify crashkernel=0,low explictly.
> 
> I think forcing user to provide crashkernel=0,low even they do not need
> is bad, IMHO one should provided crashkernel value they really need..

Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing?

--
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/