Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 16:51:13 +0100
From:   Philipp Rudo <prudo@redhat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Donald Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>,
        Jiri Bohac <jbohac@suse.cz>, Pingfan Liu <piliu@redhat.com>,
        Tao Liu <ltao@redhat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] kdump: crashkernel reservation from CMA
Message-ID: <20231201165113.43211a48@rotkaeppchen>
In-Reply-To: <ZWnJyArAmFo_uYPA@tiehlicka>
References: <ZWVMUxmi66xLZPsr@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
        <ZWWuBSiZZdF2W12j@tiehlicka>
        <ZWbyDx3TJ7zo3jCw@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
        <91a31ce5-63d1-7470-18f7-92b039fda8e6@redhat.com>
        <ZWf64BowWrYqA2Rf@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
        <ZWhg_b3O6piZtkQ-@tiehlicka>
        <ZWh6ax8YmkhxAzIf@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
        <ZWiAsJlLookvCI+h@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
        <ZWiQ-II9CvGv8EWK@tiehlicka>
        <20231201123353.2b3db7fa@rotkaeppchen>
        <ZWnJyArAmFo_uYPA@tiehlicka>
Organization: Red Hat inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 12:55:52 +0100
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:

> On Fri 01-12-23 12:33:53, Philipp Rudo wrote:
> [...]
> > And yes, those are all what-if concerns but unfortunately that is all
> > we have right now.  
> 
> Should theoretical concerns without an actual evidence (e.g. multiple
> drivers known to be broken) become a roadblock for this otherwise useful
> feature? 

Those concerns aren't just theoretical. They are experiences we have
from a related feature that suffers exactly the same problem regularly
which wouldn't exist if everybody would simply work "properly".

And yes, even purely theoretical concerns can become a roadblock for a
feature when the cost of those theoretical concerns exceed the benefit
of the feature. The thing is that bugs will be reported against kexec.
So _we_ need to figure out which of the shitty drivers caused the
problem. That puts additional burden on _us_. What we are trying to
evaluate at the moment is if the benefit outweighs the extra burden
with the information we have at the moment.

> > Only alternative would be to run extended tests in
> > the field. Which means this user facing change needs to be included.
> > Which also means that we are stuck with it as once a user facing change
> > is in it's extremely hard to get rid of it again...  
> 
> I am not really sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting once
> crashkernel=cma is added it would become a user api and therefore
> impossible to get rid of?

Yes, sort of. I wouldn't rank a command line parameter as user api. So
we still can get rid of it. But there will be long discussions I'd like
to avoid if possible.

Thanks
Philipp