Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261321AbVEFXJl (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2005 19:09:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261341AbVEFXJl (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2005 19:09:41 -0400 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:19148 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261321AbVEFXFR (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2005 19:05:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:05:46 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: sharada@in.ibm.com Cc: paulus@samba.org, torvalds@osdl.org, anton@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, miltonm@bga.com, fastboot@lists.osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc64: kexec support for ppc64 Message-Id: <20050506160546.388aeed4.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050506124409.GB2741@in.ibm.com> References: <17019.3752.917407.742713@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20050506124158.GA2741@in.ibm.com> <20050506124409.GB2741@in.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-vine-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1718 Lines: 46 R Sharada wrote: > > This patch implements the kexec support for ppc64 Well that's pretty neat. How well does this work? I assume you'll be working on kdump-via-kexec for ppc64? This kdump/kexec stuff has been hanging around for far too long, IMO. I'd like to think about what we can do to get things moving along a bit more. I have two issues with it: a) Vague feelings that the low-level ia32 changes may cause APIC/etc breakage with some PCs. b) Much more significantly: I still do not believe that it has been demonstrated that the whole kdump-via-kexec scheme will have a sufficiently high success rate for this to become Linux's way of doing crashdumps. And it would not be good if in six months time we decide that the practical problems in getting it all working sufficiently well are insurmountable and we have to revert it all and start working on something else. Recently I've seem a couple of "kdump worked for me" reports, which are greatly appreciated, but I don't think they're statistically significant. So am I right to have this concern? If so, how can we settle this? (ie: who's going to do it? ;)) Perhaps we could declare that kexec is sufficiently useful and mature in its own right and just merge up those bits while we work on kdump. This also gives us a bit of pipelining: continue to test and stabilise kexec while kdump remains in development. Opinions are sought... - 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/