On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 08:35 +0000, Atsushi Kumagai wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:00:11 -0800 > ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > > > "Hatayama, Daisuke" <d.hatayama@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > >> From: kexec-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >> [mailto:kexec-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Atsushi Kumagai > > >> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:21 AM > > > > > >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:18:56 -0800 > > >> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:39:13 +0900 > > >> > Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > We might change the PageBuddy() implementation at any time, and > > >> > makedumpfile will break. Or in this case, become less efficient. > > >> > > > >> > Is there any way in which we can move some of this logic into the > > >> > kernel? In this case, add some kernel code which uses PageBuddy() on > > >> > behalf of makedumpfile, rather than replicating the PageBuddy() logic > > >> > in userspace? > > >> > > >> In last month, Cliff Wickman proposed such idea: > > >> > > >> [PATCH v2] makedumpfile: request the kernel do page scans > > >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-November/007318.html > > >> > > >> [PATCH] scan page tables for makedumpfile, 3.0.13 kernel > > >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-November/007319.html > > >> > > >> In his idea, the kernel does page scans to distinguish unnecessary pages > > >> (free pages and others) and returns the list of PFN's which should be > > >> excluded for makedumpfile. > > >> As a result, makedumpfile doesn't need to consider internal kernel > > >> behavior. > > >> > > >> I think it's a good idea from the viewpoint of maintainability and > > >> performance. > > > > > I also think wide part of his code can be reused in this work. But the bad > > > performance is caused by a lot of ioremap, not a lot of copying. See my > > > profiling result I posted some days ago. Two issues, ioremap one and filtering > > > maintainability, should be considered separately. Even on ioremap issue, > > > there is secondary one to consider in memory consumption on the 2nd > > > kernel. > > > > Thanks. I was wondering why moving the code into /proc/vmcore would > > make things faster. > > Thanks HATAYAMA-san, I've understood the issues correctly. > We should continue improving the ioremap issue as Cliff and HATAYAMA-san > are doing now. > > > > > > Also, I have one question. Can we always think of 1st and 2nd kernels > > > are same? > > > > Not at all. Distros frequently implement it with the same kernel in > > both role but it should be possible to use an old crusty stable kernel > > as the 2nd kernel. > > > > > If I understand correctly, kexec/kdump can use the 2nd kernel different > > > from the 1st's. So, differnet kernels need to do the same thing as makedumpfile > > > does. If assuming two are same, problem is mush simplified. > > > > As a developer it becomes attractive to use a known stable kernel to > > capture the crash dump even as I experiment with a brand new kernel. > > To allow to use the 2nd kernel different from the 1st's, I think we have > to take care of each kernel version with the logic included in makedumpfile > for them. That's to say, makedumpfile goes on as before. > > > Thanks > Atsushi Kumagai Atsushi and Vivek: I'm trying to get the status of whether the patch submitted in https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/21/90 is going to be accepted upstream and get in some version of the Linux 3.8 kernel. I'm replying to the last email thread above on kexec_lists and lkml.org that I could find about this patch. I was counting on this kernel patch to improve performance of makedumpfilev1.5.1, so at least it wouldn't be a regression in performance over makedumpfile v1.4. It was listed as recommended in the makedumpfilev1.5.1 release posting: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-December/007460.html All the conversations in the thread since this patch was committed seem to voice some reservations now, and reference other fixes being tried to improve performance. Does that mean you are abandoning getting this patch accepted upstream, in favor of pursuing other alternatives? I had hoped this patch would be okay to get accepted upstream, and then other improvements could be built on top of it. Is that not the case? Or has further review concluded now that this change is a bad idea due to adding dependence of this new makedumpfile feature on some deep kernel memory internals? Thanks, Lisa Mitchell -- 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>