mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Sourabh Jain" <sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: "Pasha Tatashin" <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org,
	"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
	"George Guo" <guodongtai@kylinos.cn>,
	"Pratyush Yadav" <pratyush@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Alexander Graf" <graf@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kho: fix global scratch size calculation
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 13:27:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260922132738.B15EB1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260922131217.698809-1-sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] kho: lowmem scratch exhaustion due to missing node-specific lowmem reservations
--

commit 45b67db1813edaa6fb1bdfe7033f0598a814cd63
Author: Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>

kho: fix global scratch size calculation

This commit updates the scratch size calculations to correctly distinguish
between memory reserved for a specific NUMA node and memory reserved with
NUMA_NO_NODE. It introduces memblock_reserved_size_nid() to calculate
reserved memory based on reservation type and NUMA node, fixing an issue
where per-node reservations were incorrectly included in the global scratch
allocation.

> diff --git a/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c b/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> index 7c4d86daf86d5..dc809e1e768c0 100644
> --- a/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> +++ b/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -787,17 +787,17 @@ static void __init scratch_size_update(void)
>  	if (scratch_scale) {
>  		phys_addr_t size;
>  
> -		size = memblock_reserved_kern_size(ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT,
> -						   NUMA_NO_NODE);
> -		size -= memblock_reserved_hugetlb_size(ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT,
> -						       NUMA_NO_NODE);
> +		size = memblock_reserved_size_nid(ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> +						  MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN);

[Severity: High]
Does checking NUMA_NO_NODE here exclude node-specific lowmem reservations
(like node-bound DMA pools) from the lowmem scratch size calculation?

If the successor kernel requires lowmem for these node-specific reservations
during early boot, could shrinking the global lowmem scratch memory lead to
memblock allocation failures and a panic?

> +		size -= memblock_reserved_size_nid(ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> +						   MEMBLOCK_RSRV_HUGETLB);
>  		size = size * scratch_scale / 100;
>  		scratch_size_lowmem = size;
[ ... ]
> @@ -815,11 +815,11 @@ static phys_addr_t __init scratch_size_node(int nid)
>  	phys_addr_t size;
>  
>  	if (scratch_scale) {
> -		size = memblock_reserved_kern_size(MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE,
> -						   nid);
> +		size = memblock_reserved_size_nid(MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE, nid,
> +						  MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN);

[Severity: High]
Are the node-specific lowmem reservations that were excluded from
scratch_size_lowmem now being counted here instead? Since this counts
with MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE, will these reservations potentially be satisfied
using scratch memory in highmem?

If the successor kernel restricts its memblock allocations to
MEMBLOCK_KHO_SCRATCH regions, won't it be unable to recreate its
node-specific lowmem reservations if the per-node scratch memory was placed
in highmem?

>  		/* Do not count HugeTLB pages. */
> -		size -= memblock_reserved_hugetlb_size(MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE,
> -						       nid);
> +		size -= memblock_reserved_size_nid(MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE, nid,
> +						   MEMBLOCK_RSRV_HUGETLB);
>  		size = size * scratch_scale / 100;
>  	} else {
>  		size = scratch_size_pernode;

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260922131217.698809-1-sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com?part=1

      reply	other threads:[~2026-09-22 13:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-22 13:12 Sourabh Jain
2026-09-22 13:27 ` sashiko-bot [this message]

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=20260922132738.B15EB1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=graf@amazon.com \
    --cc=guodongtai@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
    --cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
    --cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=sourabhjain@linux.ibm.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®