From: Mukesh Pilaniya <mpilaniy@redhat.com>
To: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
Cc: Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Chen Pei <cp0613@linux.alibaba.com>,
George Guo <guodongtai@kylinos.cn>,
Kexin Liu <liukexin@kylinos.cn>,
Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] kho: walk bootmem areas in address order
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2026 12:02:05 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <990cc079-70ab-4fcf-9974-679aaf07849e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261104-kho-bootmem-sizing-v2-1-b0d1a834780f@kernel.org>
Hi Mike,
On 04/11/26 10:20 pm, Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) wrote:
> kexec_add_buffer() users may depend on the order in which memory holes are
> searched. For instance, arm64 places the kernel bottom-up and then
> requires the DTB to be above the kernel.
>
> kho_walk_bootmem() walks the bootmem areas in the order they were
> reserved, so if the kernel lands in a small area at the top of the memory
> there is no room left for the DTB and kexec fails. For example, on an
> arm64 VM with 2G of RAM and kho_bootmem=8M,64M,64M, the lowmem area is
> reserved first at the top of the memory, the kernel image takes most of
> it and kexec fails with
>
> kexec_file(Image): Could not find any suitable kernel location!
>
> Sort the bootmem areas by address and walk them in ascending order, or in
> descending order for top-down searches, like kexec_walk_resources() does.
>
> Fixes: 3bdecc3c93f9 ("kexec: add KHO support to kexec file loads")
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c b/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> index 6f1f55fe31819..2ac5d94f33fd4 100644
> --- a/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> +++ b/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/memblock.h>
> #include <linux/page-isolation.h>
> +#include <linux/sort.h>
> #include <linux/unaligned.h>
> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>
> @@ -820,6 +821,14 @@ bool kho_bootmem_overlap(phys_addr_t phys, size_t size)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static int __init kho_bootmem_cmp(const void *_a, const void *_b)
> +{
> + const struct kho_bootmem *a = _a;
> + const struct kho_bootmem *b = _b;
> +
> + return cmp_int(a->addr, b->addr);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * kho_reserve_bootmem - Reserve a contiguous chunk of memory for kexec
> *
> @@ -904,6 +913,9 @@ static void __init kho_reserve_bootmem(void)
> */
> kho_bootmem_cnt = i;
>
> + sort(kho_bootmem, kho_bootmem_cnt, sizeof(*kho_bootmem),
> + kho_bootmem_cmp, NULL);
This only covers the case where this kernel allocated the areas itself.
On a KHO boot the array comes from the previous kernel. A kernel with
this series that is handed over from one without it therefore keeps
walking the areas in reservation order for every following
kexec_file_load, and the arm64 failure you describe comes back until the
next cold boot and vise versa because the ABI string is still
"kho-v4".
So, sorting once in kho_memory_init_early after kho_bootmem is
mapped would make the invariant independent of the producer. When the
previous kernel does have the sort this is a no-op, but the consumer
cannot tell which kernel recorded the array, because the ABI string is
the same.
> +
> return;
>
> err_free_bootmem_areas:
> @@ -2081,20 +2093,40 @@ int kho_fill_kimage(struct kimage *image)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int kho_walk_bootmem(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
> - int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> +static int kho_bootmem_walk_one(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
> + const struct kho_bootmem *area,
> + int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> +{
> + struct resource res = {
> + .start = area->addr,
> + .end = area->addr + area->size - 1,
> + };
> +
> + /* Try to fit the kbuf into our KHO bootmem region */
> + return func(&res, kbuf);
> +}
> +
> +static int kho_bootmem_walk_top_down(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
> + int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> {
> int ret = 0;
> - int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < kho_bootmem_cnt; i++) {
> - struct resource res = {
> - .start = kho_bootmem[i].addr,
> - .end = kho_bootmem[i].addr + kho_bootmem[i].size - 1,
> - };
> + for (int i = kho_bootmem_cnt - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
kho_bootmem_cnt is unsigned, but the reverse loops in
kho_reserve_bootmem() and kho_bootmem_walk_top_down() start an int
counter at kho_bootmem_cnt - 1, which for a zero count is UINT_MAX
converted to int. That conversion is implementation-defined; with the
current compilers it yields -1 and the loop body is skipped.
How about using this one.
for (unsigned int i = kho_bootmem_cnt; i-- > 0;)
Reviewed-by: Mukesh Pilaniya <mpilaniy@redhat.com>
> + ret = kho_bootmem_walk_one(kbuf, &kho_bootmem[i], func);
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
>
> - /* Try to fit the kimage into our KHO bootmem region */
> - ret = func(&res, kbuf);
> +static int kho_bootmem_walk_bottom_up(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
> + int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + for (int i = 0; i < kho_bootmem_cnt; i++) {
> + ret = kho_bootmem_walk_one(kbuf, &kho_bootmem[i], func);
> if (ret)
> break;
> }
> @@ -2110,7 +2142,10 @@ int kho_locate_mem_hole(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
> if (!kho_enable || kbuf->image->type == KEXEC_TYPE_CRASH)
> return 1;
>
> - ret = kho_walk_bootmem(kbuf, func);
> + if (kbuf->top_down)
> + ret = kho_bootmem_walk_top_down(kbuf, func);
> + else
> + ret = kho_bootmem_walk_bottom_up(kbuf, func);
>
> return ret == 1 ? 0 : -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
> }
>
--
Regards,
Mukesh Pilaniya
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-12 6:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-04 16:50 [PATCH v2 0/3] kho: fix bootmem sizing Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)
2026-11-04 16:50 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] kho: walk bootmem areas in address order Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)
2026-11-04 18:57 ` Pasha Tatashin
2026-11-04 22:14 ` Jose A. Perez de Azpillaga
2026-11-10 16:52 ` Pratyush Yadav
2026-11-12 6:32 ` Mukesh Pilaniya [this message]
2026-11-04 16:50 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] kho: skip zero-sized lowmem and global bootmem areas Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)
2026-11-04 18:57 ` Pasha Tatashin
2026-11-04 22:17 ` Jose A. Perez de Azpillaga
2026-11-10 16:55 ` Pratyush Yadav
2026-11-12 6:48 ` Mukesh Pilaniya
2026-11-04 16:50 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] kho: fix bootmem sizing Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)
2026-11-04 18:57 ` Pasha Tatashin
2026-11-05 9:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2026-11-04 22:17 ` Jose A. Perez de Azpillaga
2026-11-10 16:54 ` Pratyush Yadav
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=990cc079-70ab-4fcf-9974-679aaf07849e@redhat.com \
--to=mpilaniy@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cp0613@linux.alibaba.com \
--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=liukexin@kylinos.cn \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--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®