On 08/23/16 at 06:11pm, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Dave Young <dyoung at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 08/17/16 at 09:50am, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> >> "/sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size" only handles crashk_res, it
> >> is fine in most cases, but sometimes we have crashk_low_res.
> >> For example, when "crashkernel=size[KMG],high" combined with
> >> "crashkernel=size[KMG],low" is used for 64-bit x86.
> >>
> >> Like crashk_res, we introduce the corresponding sysfs file
> >> "/sys/kernel/kexec_crash_low_size" for crashk_low_res.
> >>
> >> So, the exact total reserved memory is the sum of the two.
> >>
> >> crashk_low_res can also be shrunk via this new interface,
> >> and users should be aware of what they are doing.
> ...
> >> @@ -218,6 +238,7 @@ static struct attribute * kernel_attrs[] = {
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE
> >> &kexec_loaded_attr.attr,
> >> &kexec_crash_loaded_attr.attr,
> >> + &kexec_crash_low_size_attr.attr,
> >> &kexec_crash_size_attr.attr,
> >> &vmcoreinfo_attr.attr,
> >> #endif
>
> would be better if you can use attribute_group .is_visible to control showing of
> crash_low_size only when the crash_base is above 4G.
I have same feeling that it looks odd to show low in sysfs in case no
crashkernel=,high being used. Even if crashkernel=,high is used only in
x86 the resource crashk_low is in common code. What do you think to move
it to x86?
Thanks
Dave
>
> Thanks
>
> Yinghai
>
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
