On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:58:39AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> > IOW, wouldn't it be better that crashkernel=X first tries to find >> > requested amount of memory in lowest memory area available/possible. >> >> Yest, that is much better, and user even could stay with old kexec-tools >> for system that does not tons of memory. >> And I don't need to mess up with auto setting crashkernel_low or export >> swiotlb_size() etc. >> >> Please check if you are ok with attached one. >> > Hi Yinghai, > > In mutt your patches are showing as attachment instead of inline. Mutt > thinks attachment is of type "application/octet-stream". Not sure if > this is configuration issue on my part or something is going on your > end.
I sent it via gmail and it only can have attachment instead of inline. > > I have few more concerns. > > - Are we able to reserve 512MB memory now below 896MB. I remember so > far it was broken. It also depends BIOS memmap layout. some bios put reserved on middle of ram like just below 512M or just 2G. > > - If reserving memory below 896MB fails, we immediately switch to > reserving anywhere till MAXMEM. Would it make sense to first try > to reserve it below 4G (so that we don't have to worry much about > swiotlb or iommu being on). ok. Attached again. Thanks Yinghai
fix_crashkernel_low_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
