[RFC PATCH v2 0/10] makedumpfile: cyclic processing to keep memory consumption.
d.hatayama at jp.fujitsu.com
Wed Jul 11 01:23:59 EDT 2012
From: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama at jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/10] makedumpfile: cyclic processing to keep memory consumption.
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:52:11 +0900
> From: Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi at mxc.nes.nec.co.jp>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/10] makedumpfile: cyclic processing to keep memory consumption.
> Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 14:54:06 +0900
>> Hello Vivek,
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:39:05 -0400
>> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:13:20AM +0900, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:
>>> > Hello,
>>> > I improved prototype of cyclic processing as version 2.
>>> > If there is no objection to basic idea, I want to consider the things
>>> > related to performance as next step. (Concretely, buffer size and the patch set
>>> > HATAYAMA-san sent a short time ago.)
>>> Hi Atushi san,
>>> Good to see this work making progress. I have few queries.
>>> - Do you have some numbers for bigger machines like 1TB or higher memory.
>>> I am curious to know how bad is the time penalty.
>> I'm afraid that I don't have such a large machine, so I need someone who can
>> measure execution time in large machine.
> I can prepare such machine but I cannot say I can use the machine on
> this day precisely for example. But I think it must be until the end
> of this month at most. So, I would like to fix content of benchmark
I'm now trying to reserve the machine with big memory, but I'm not
accurately sure when I can use the machine; expecting within this
month? In advance, I want to make sure what I measure in this
benchmark in more detail.
I'm going to collect at least what you showed in your benchmark: RSS
size for no option, -cd31 and -Ed31. Is there another to collect?
More information about the kexec