On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Can you please inline your patches. Otherwise how one is supposed to give
> review comments?
Just sent the whole updated four patches. Please check them.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 08:46:16AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 07:45:36AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >> 2. keep thing unified when new kexec-tools is used: always high.
> >
> > I think this is wrong. What if
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 07:45:36AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> [..]
>> 2. keep thing unified when new kexec-tools is used: always high.
>
> I think this is wrong. What if system does not have more than 4G of
> memory. crashkernel=x,high will fa
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 07:45:36AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> - Ok so atleast use a different delimiter. Otherwise one could specify
> rage1:size1,range2:size2,high which is confusing.
>
> - I think one can look at above as follows.
>
> cr
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 07:45:36AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
> 2. keep thing unified when new kexec-tools is used: always high.
I think this is wrong. What if system does not have more than 4G of
memory. crashkernel=x,high will fail. So just because we have new version
of kexec-tools, it does
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 07:45:36AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[..]
> No, that make the logic too complicated.
>
> After those four patches:
> if the user still use old kexec-tools, they are still with
> crashkernel=X, nothing is changed.
> if the user want to use crashkernel=X,high, they should upd
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 09:50:01AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> [..]
>> To achieve the behavior where we want to enforce that memory either
>> comes from low or high area only otherwise allocation fails, we could
>> probably use.
>>
>> crashker
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 06:11:38PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> >> On 04/01/2013 03:17 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> And his l
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 09:50:01AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
[..]
> To achieve the behavior where we want to enforce that memory either
> comes from low or high area only otherwise allocation fails, we could
> probably use.
>
> crashkernel=X,high_only
> crashkernel=X,low_only
Thinking more about
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 06:11:38PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 04/01/2013 03:17 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And his last suggestion is just as his old second suggestion.
> >>>
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 01:47:58PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
[..]
> > All this will only address the issue of where to reserve memory. It will
> > still not solve the issue of how much memory to reserve. We have no way
> > to know. It is all heuristics.
>
> At least heuristics in a script is b
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 04/01/2013 03:17 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> And his last suggestion is just as his old second suggestion.
>>>
>>> I just check the code again, it looks it is easy to change it to sup
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/01/2013 03:17 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> And his last suggestion is just as his old second suggestion.
>>
>> I just check the code again, it looks it is easy to change it to support:
>> 1. crashkernel=XM
>> 2. crashkernel_high=XM
>> 3.
On 04/01/2013 03:17 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> And his last suggestion is just as his old second suggestion.
>
> I just check the code again, it looks it is easy to change it to support:
> 1. crashkernel=XM
> 2. crashkernel_high=XM
> 3. crashkernel_high=XM crashkernel_low=YM
>
Yes... my objectio
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/01/2013 02:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:47 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> It sounds that the "never DMA'd to memory" notion requires that we have
> some low memory for the iommu, no?
>
> Or am I misunderstanding w
On 04/01/2013 02:10 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:47 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 04/01/2013 12:26 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>
>>> crashkernel=,,.. and crashkernel=800M,high sound
>>> good to me.
>>>
>>> So atleast for 3.9 kernel, shall we hide new semantics behind
>>> crashker
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:47 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/01/2013 12:26 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
>> crashkernel=,,.. and crashkernel=800M,high sound
>> good to me.
>>
>> So atleast for 3.9 kernel, shall we hide new semantics behind
>> crashkernel=XM,high and by default crashkernel=XM tries to
On 04/01/2013 12:26 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I agree that this dependency on crashkernel is creating lots of problems
> and there should be a better way to manage it.
>
> Sorry, but I did not fully understand your suggestion on how to handle the
> problem. IIUC, you are suggestin
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 11:33:13AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/01/2013 06:34 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 02:14:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:50:18PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On 04/01/2013 06:34 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 02:14:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:50:18PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
So it is a forgone conclusion that these new kernel changes to
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 02:14:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:50:18PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > So it is a forgone conclusion that these new kernel changes to
> > > crashkernel=X in 3.9 are incompatible with
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:50:18PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > So it is a forgone conclusion that these new kernel changes to
> > crashkernel=X in 3.9 are incompatible with older kexec-tools and one
> > needs to upgrade kexec-tools.
>
> I th
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So it is a forgone conclusion that these new kernel changes to
> crashkernel=X in 3.9 are incompatible with older kexec-tools and one
> needs to upgrade kexec-tools.
I thought that you and hpa all agreed that user need to update kexec-tools w
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:22:09PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> We can extend kexec-tools to support multiple "Crash kernel" in /proc/iomem
> instead.
>
> So we can use "Crash kernel" instead of "Crash kernel low" in /proc/iomem.
>
> Suggested-by: Vivek Goyal
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu
Hi Yingh
24 matches
Mail list logo
