On 11/15/2013 10:46 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 11/15/2013 10:30 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote: >> >> I agree taking assistance of hypervisor should be useful. >> >> One reason we use kdump for VM too because it makes life simple. There >> is no difference in how we configure, start and manage crash dumps >> in baremetal or inside VM. And in practice have not heard of lot of >> failures of kdump in VM environment. >> >> So while reliability remains a theoritical concern, in practice it >> has not been a real concern and that's one reason I think we have >> not seen a major push for alternative method in VM environment. >> > > Another reason, again, is that it doesn't sit on all that memory. > This led me to a potentially interesting idea. If we can tell the hypervisor about which memory blocks belong to kdump, we can still use kdump in its current form with only a few hypervisor calls thrown in. One set of calls would mark memory ranges as belonging to kdump. This would (a) make them protected, and (b) tell the hypervisor that these memory ranges will not be accessed and don't need to occupy physical RAM. On a crash, we would them execute another hypercall to reanimate the kdump areas. Since this is a once-in-a-lifetime (literally) event, this can be arbitrarily slow. This would only require a small number of hypercalls inserted into already existing code paths, and provide most of the benefit of hypervisor-assisted crash dumping. -hpa -- 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>