On 2016/08/24 at 16:20, Dave Young wrote:
> 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?
If want to put some restriction on it, I'd prefer to move crashk_low to arch x86, to make
it x86-specific.
We can show the interface unconditionally. If it isn't used, its size is 0, it doesn't matter.
Regards,
Xunlei
>
> Thanks
> Dave
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Yinghai
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> kexec mailing list
>> kexec at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
