From: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
bhe@redhat.com, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@hpe.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
yinghai@kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X consistent with kaslr
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:12:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190225111216.GA9276@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190225110043.GA5884@suse.de>
On 02/25/19 at 12:00pm, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:00:26PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 09:42:41AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > The current default of 256MB was found by experiments on a bigger
> > > number of machines, to create a reasonable default that is at least
> > > likely to be sufficient of an average machine.
> >
> > Exactly, and this is what makes sense.
> >
> > The code should try the requested reservation and if it fails, it should
> > try high allocation with default swiotlb size because we need to reserve
> > *some* range.
>
> Right, makes sense. While at it, maybe it is time to move the default
> allocation policy to 'high' again. The change was reverted six years ago
> because it broke old kexec tools, but those are probably out-of-service
> now. I think this change would make the whole crashdump allocation
> process less fragile.
One concern about this is for average cases, one do not need so much
memory for kdump. For example in RHEL we use crashkernel=auto to
automatically reserve kdump kernel memory, and for x86 the reserved size
is like below now:
1G-64G:160M,64G-1T:256M,1T-:512M
That means for a machine with less than 64G memory we only allocate
160M, it works for most machines in our lab.
If we move to high as default, it will allocate 160M high + 256M low. It
is too much for people who is good with the default 160M. Especially
for virtual machine with less memory (but > 4G)
To make the process less fragile maybe we can remove the 896M limitation
and only try <4G then go to high.
Thanks
Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-25 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-21 5:16 [PATCHv7] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X consistent with kaslr Pingfan Liu
2019-01-21 6:24 ` Baoquan He
2019-01-25 10:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-01-25 13:45 ` Dave Young
2019-01-25 14:08 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-01-28 9:58 ` Dave Young
2019-01-28 10:18 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-07 17:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-10 6:51 ` Dave Young
2019-01-29 5:25 ` Pingfan Liu
2019-01-31 7:42 ` Dave Young
2019-01-31 7:59 ` Dave Young
2019-01-31 10:57 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-01-31 22:27 ` Jerry Hoemann
2019-01-31 23:47 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-02-04 22:30 ` Jerry Hoemann
2019-02-05 8:15 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-02-06 12:08 ` Dave Young
2019-02-11 20:48 ` Dave Young
2019-02-12 5:35 ` Pingfan Liu
2019-02-15 10:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-02-18 1:48 ` Dave Young
2019-02-20 7:38 ` Pingfan Liu
2019-02-20 8:32 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-02-20 9:41 ` Dave Young
2019-02-20 12:51 ` Pingfan Liu
2019-02-21 17:13 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-02-22 2:11 ` Dave Young
2019-02-22 8:42 ` Joerg Roedel
2019-02-22 13:00 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-02-24 13:25 ` Pingfan Liu
2019-02-25 1:53 ` Dave Young
2019-02-25 9:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-02-25 11:00 ` Joerg Roedel
2019-02-25 11:12 ` Dave Young [this message]
2019-02-25 11:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-03-01 3:04 ` Pingfan Liu
2019-03-01 3:19 ` Pingfan Liu
2019-03-22 8:22 ` Dave Young
2019-01-29 5:51 ` Pingfan Liu
2019-01-31 10:50 ` Borislav Petkov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-01-15 8:07 Pingfan Liu
2019-01-18 3:43 ` Dave Young
2019-01-19 1:25 ` Jerry Hoemann
2019-01-21 5:11 ` Pingfan Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190225111216.GA9276@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com \
--to=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jerry.hoemann@hpe.com \
--cc=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=kernelfans@gmail.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).