On 2016/7/21 16:10, Dave Young wrote: > On 07/19/16 at 09:07pm, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> zhongjiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> From: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I hit the following question when run trinity in my system. The >>> kernel is 3.4 version. but the mainline have same question to be >>> solved. The root cause is the segment size is too large, it can >>> expand the most of the area or the whole memory, therefore, it >>> may waste an amount of time to abtain a useable page. and other >>> cases will block until the test case quit. at the some time, >>> OOM will come up. >> 5MiB is way too small. I have seen vmlinux images not to mention >> ramdisks that get larger than that. Depending on the system >> 1GiB might not be an unreasonable ramdisk size. AKA run an entire live >> system out of a ramfs. It works well if you have enough memory. > There was a use case from Michael Holzheu about a 1.5G ramdisk, see below > kexec-tools commit: > > commit 95741713e790fa6bde7780bbfb772ad88e81a744 > Author: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri Oct 30 16:02:04 2015 +0100 > > kexec/s390x: use mmap instead of read for slurp_file() > > The slurp_fd() function allocates memory and uses the read() system > call. > This results in double memory consumption for image and initrd: > > 1) Memory allocated in user space by the kexec tool > 2) Memory allocated in kernel by the kexec() system call > > The following illustrates the use case that we have on s390x: > > 1) Boot a 4 GB Linux system > 2) Copy kernel and 1,5 GB ramdisk from external source into tmpfs > (ram) > 3) Use kexec to boot kernel with ramdisk > > Therefore for kexec runtime we need: > > 1,5 GB (tmpfs) + 1,5 GB (kexec malloc) + 1,5 GB (kernel memory) = > 4,5 GB > > This patch introduces slurp_file_mmap() which for "normal" files > uses > mmap() instead of malloc()/read(). This reduces the runtime memory > consumption of the kexec tool as follows: > > 1,5 GB (tmpfs) + 1,5 GB (kernel memory) = 3 GB > > Signed-off-by: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> I think there is a practical limit at about 50% of memory (because we >> need two copies in memory the source and the destination pages), but >> anything else is pretty much reasonable and should have a fair chance of >> working. >> >> A limit that reflected that reality above would be interesting. >> Anything else will likely cause someone trouble in the futrue. > Maybe one should test his ramdisk first to ensure it works first before > really using it. > > Thanks > Dave > > . > Thank you reply. I just test the syscall kexec_load, I don't really run kexec iamge to boot machine. Recently , I hit the question. I fix it by passing resonable parameters to kernel from user space. no functional change. is right? according to the W. Biederman advice, I agree so. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>