From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
<x86@kernel.org>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
<kexec@lists.infradead.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
<linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
Chen Zhou <dingguo.cz@antgroup.com>,
"John Donnelly" <John.p.donnelly@oracle.com>,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v23 3/6] arm64: kdump: Reimplement crashkernel=X
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 11:22:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <189f24a8-9e9b-b3e9-7ac5-935433ea575b@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YnQC44KVKirH0vyB@arm.com>
On 2022/5/6 1:01, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 05:18:42PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> From: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@huawei.com>
>>
>> There are following issues in arm64 kdump:
>> 1. We use crashkernel=X to reserve crashkernel in DMA zone, which
>> will fail when there is not enough low memory.
>> 2. If reserving crashkernel above DMA zone, in this case, crash dump
>> kernel will fail to boot because there is no low memory available
>> for allocation.
>>
>> To solve these issues, introduce crashkernel=X,[high,low].
>> The "crashkernel=X,high" is used to select a region above DMA zone, and
>> the "crashkernel=Y,low" is used to allocate specified size low memory.
>
> Thanks for posting the simplified version, though the discussion with
> Baoquan is still ongoing. AFAICT there is no fallback if crashkernel=
> fails. The advantage with this series is cleaner code, we set the limits
> during parsing and don't have to adjust them if some of the first
> allocation failed.
Yes, I'm currently implementing it in the simplest version, providing only
the most basic functions. Because the conclusions of this part of the discussion
are clear. I think I can send the fallback, default low size, and mapping optimization
patches separately after this basic version is merged. These three functions can
be discussed separately.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>> index 51863f1448c6989..11406f3e1443168 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>> @@ -90,6 +90,32 @@ phys_addr_t __ro_after_init arm64_dma_phys_limit;
>> phys_addr_t __ro_after_init arm64_dma_phys_limit = PHYS_MASK + 1;
>> #endif
>>
>> +/* Current arm64 boot protocol requires 2MB alignment */
>> +#define CRASH_ALIGN SZ_2M
>> +
>> +#define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX arm64_dma_phys_limit
>> +#define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX memblock.current_limit
>
> Better use memblock_get_current_limit() if you need to or just
> MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE, memblock.current_limit is just a memblock
> internal. But I think we can go for (PHYS_MASK + 1) if you need
> something other than MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE, memblock knows what to
> allocate anyway.
Yes, it would be better to use (PHYS_MASK + 1).
>
>> +static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(unsigned long long low_size)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long long low_base;
>> +
>> + low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, 0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
>> + if (!low_base) {
>> + pr_err("cannot allocate crashkernel low memory (size:0x%llx).\n", low_size);
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pr_info("crashkernel low memory reserved: 0x%08llx - 0x%08llx (%lld MB)\n",
>> + low_base, low_base + low_size, low_size >> 20);
>> +
>> + crashk_low_res.start = low_base;
>> + crashk_low_res.end = low_base + low_size - 1;
>> + insert_resource(&iomem_resource, &crashk_low_res);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * reserve_crashkernel() - reserves memory for crash kernel
>> *
>> @@ -100,17 +126,32 @@ phys_addr_t __ro_after_init arm64_dma_phys_limit = PHYS_MASK + 1;
>> static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>> {
>> unsigned long long crash_base, crash_size;
>> - unsigned long long crash_max = arm64_dma_phys_limit;
>> + unsigned long long crash_low_size = 0;
>> + unsigned long long crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
>> + char *cmdline = boot_command_line;
>> int ret;
>>
>> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE))
>> return;
>>
>> - ret = parse_crashkernel(boot_command_line, memblock_phys_mem_size(),
>> + /* crashkernel=X[@offset] */
>> + ret = parse_crashkernel(cmdline, memblock_phys_mem_size(),
>> &crash_size, &crash_base);
>> - /* no crashkernel= or invalid value specified */
>> - if (ret || !crash_size)
>> - return;
>> + if (ret || !crash_size) {
>
> I think we should check for ret == -ENOENT only. If the crashkernel=
> exists but is malformed or the size is 0, we shouldn't bother with
> high/low at all.
That's right.
>
>> + ret = parse_crashkernel_high(cmdline, 0, &crash_size, &crash_base);
>> + if (ret || !crash_size)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * crashkernel=Y,low can be specified or not, but invalid value
>> + * is not allowed.
>> + */
>> + ret = parse_crashkernel_low(cmdline, 0, &crash_low_size, &crash_base);
>> + if (ret && (ret != -ENOENT))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX;
>> + }
>>
>> crash_size = PAGE_ALIGN(crash_size);
>>
>> @@ -118,8 +159,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>> if (crash_base)
>> crash_max = crash_base + crash_size;
>>
>> - /* Current arm64 boot protocol requires 2MB alignment */
>> - crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, SZ_2M,
>> + crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN,
>> crash_base, crash_max);
>> if (!crash_base) {
>> pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n",
>
> I personally like this but let's see how the other thread goes. I guess
Me too. This fallback complicates code logic more than just a little.
I'm not sure why someone would rather add fallback than change the bootup
options to crashkernel=X,[high|low]. Perhaps fallback to high/low is a better
compatible and extended mode when crashkernel=X fails to reserve memory. And
the code logic will be much clearer.
//parse crashkernel=X //To simplify the discussion, Ignore [@offset]
crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range()
if (!crash_base || /* crashkernel=X is not specified */) {
//parse crashkernel=X,[high,low]
//reserve high/low memory
}
So that, the following three modes are supported:
1) crashkernel=X[@offset]
2) crashkernel=X,high crashkernel=X,low
3) crashkernel=X[@offset] crashkernel=X,high [crashkernel=Y,low]
For case 3), try "crashkernel=X[@offset]" first, if it can not work, fallback
to "crashkernel=X,high crashkernel=X,low". This looks better than the old "crashkernel=X"
fallback ---- Select a region under 4G first, and fall back to reserve region above 4G.
Note: when the X of crashkernel=X and crashkernel=X,high are the same, It's equivalent
to the old "crashkernel=X" fallback.
> if we want a fallback, it would come just before the check the above:
>
> if (!crash_base && crash_max != CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX) {
> /* attempt high allocation with default low */
> if (!crash_low_size)
> crash_low_size = some default;
> crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX; We should fallback to high memory now.
> crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range();
> }
>
> Well, I guess we end up with your earlier proposal but I think I
> understand it better now ;).
>
--
Regards,
Zhen Lei
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-06 3:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-05 9:18 [PATCH v23 0/6] support reserving crashkernel above 4G on arm64 kdump Zhen Lei
2022-05-05 9:18 ` [PATCH v23 1/6] kdump: return -ENOENT if required cmdline option does not exist Zhen Lei
2022-05-05 9:18 ` [PATCH v23 2/6] arm64: Use insert_resource() to simplify code Zhen Lei
2022-05-05 9:18 ` [PATCH v23 3/6] arm64: kdump: Reimplement crashkernel=X Zhen Lei
2022-05-05 17:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-06 3:22 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown) [this message]
2022-05-06 11:06 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-06 12:35 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2022-05-06 13:16 ` Baoquan He
2022-05-06 17:45 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-07 10:45 ` Baoquan He
2022-05-05 9:18 ` [PATCH v23 4/6] of: fdt: Add memory for devices by DT property "linux,usable-memory-range" Zhen Lei
2022-05-05 9:18 ` [PATCH v23 5/6] of: Support more than one crash kernel regions for kexec -s Zhen Lei
2022-05-05 20:03 ` Rob Herring
2022-05-05 9:18 ` [PATCH v23 6/6] docs: kdump: Update the crashkernel description for arm64 Zhen Lei
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=189f24a8-9e9b-b3e9-7ac5-935433ea575b@huawei.com \
--to=thunder.leizhen@huawei.com \
--cc=John.p.donnelly@oracle.com \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave.kleikamp@oracle.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dingguo.cz@antgroup.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®