Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] KEXEC: Clean up logic to choose a range for the crash kernel

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 25.11.11 at 17:03, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 25/11/11 15:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 25.11.11 at 16:12, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Where's that happening? Are you perhaps mis-interpreting the
>> purpose of these ranges?
> 
> I might possibly be misinterpreting these ranges as the only
> documentation is the code, but I believe I have got it correct based on
> the upstream Linux code.  What are your interpretations of the ranges?

The ranges are to say "if the system has between <start> and <end>
amount of memory, then allocate a <size> block (possibly located at
<offset>).

>>> 4) Remove the kexec reservation code when considering modules
>>>     This code only had any effect for people using the "newer" syntax
>>>     on the command line, as people using the "classic" syntax would
>>>     reserve a memory region before considering modules.
>> Are you sure? How do you prevent the kexec area from overlapping
>> any of the modules (in particular the initrd, which can get passed in
>> place to Dom0)?
> 
> Good point, which is why this is an RFC.  Note that the "classic"
> syntax, which everyone refers to in documents on the subject, will never
> consider any of the modules.

It won't in either case when addresses are specified. It will in
both cases when only sizes are provided.

> I am not really sure which is best, but I
> would consider positioning the kdump kernel more important than the
> location of initrd.  The user is likely to know more about why their
> kdump kernel needs to be located where specified than Xen does.  Perhaps
> after deciding where the kdump kernel should go, we should move any
> overlapping modules?

And that's already happening (or is at least supposed to be).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel