On Monday 08 August 2016 02:26 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Hari Bathini <hbathini at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> On Friday 05 August 2016 12:23 AM, Hari Bathini wrote: >>> On Thursday 04 August 2016 03:15 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>>> The code already knows how to reserve 5% based on the size of the >>>> machine's >>>> memory, as long as no commandline parameter is passed. So why can't we >>>> just use that logic? >>> That is the default value reserved but not a good enough value for >>> every case. It is a bit difficult to come up with a robust formula >>> that works for every case as new kernel changes could make the >>> values obsolete. But it won't be all that difficult to find values that >>> work for different memory ranges for a given kernel version. >>> Passing that as range based input with "fadump_reserve_mem" >>> parameter would work for every memory configuration on a >>> given system, which is what this patch is trying to provide.. >> You want me to add this to the changelog on respin? Hi Michael, > I'm not really convinced. > > Distros are going to want to specify a fixed set of values for different > memory sizes, at least that's what I've seen in the past with kdump. So > I don't see why we can't just do that in the kernel with a formula based > on memory size, and maybe some other information. Agreed. Such support would be great but this patch is adding support for a new syntax for an existing parameter which should still be good to have? > Maybe the formula is more complicated than 5% of RAM, but it shouldn't > be *that* much more complicated. Depending on what all kernel versions that need support, this can get ugly? I could be completely wrong though.. Thanks Hari > cheers > > _______________________________________________ > kexec mailing list > kexec at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec >
