From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755357AbZHLBq3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:46:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754882AbZHLBq2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:46:28 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:50490 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751468AbZHLBq1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:46:27 -0400 To: Amerigo Wang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman , Andi Kleen , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar References: <20090811104144.5154.77871.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090811104154.5154.78710.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <4A821A14.1020408@redhat.com> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:46:18 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4A821A14.1020408@redhat.com> (Amerigo Wang's message of "Wed\, 12 Aug 2009 09\:25\:40 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=76.21.114.89;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 76.21.114.89 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: amwang@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, andi@firstfloor.org, nhorman@redhat.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Amerigo Wang X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral * 0.4 UNTRUSTED_Relay Comes from a non-trusted relay Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/2] kexec: allow to shrink reserved memory X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:26:12 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Amerigo Wang writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Amerigo Wang writes: >> >> >>> This patch implements shrinking the reserved memory for crash kernel, >>> if it is more than enough. >>> >>> For example, if you have already reserved 128M, now you just want 100M, >>> you can do: >>> >>> # echo $((100*1024*1024)) > /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size >>> >> >> This patch looks like a reasonable start. >> >> However once a crash kernel image is loaded we have already told that >> image about the memory that is available and what you are doing here >> will go and stop on the memory that is reserved but not yet used, >> totally breaking the DMA protections. AKA we know the memory is safe >> from ongoing DMAs because it has lain fallow since boot up. >> >> The only safe thing to do is to reduce the memory size before (possibly >> just before) we load the crash kernel. Which means we should only >> be allowed to shrink the size when nothing is loaded, exactly the >> opposite of what you have implemented. >> >> > > Confused, why just loading the crash kernel makes it unsafe? > DMA should be avoided when reserving that memory during boot, shouldn't it? Yes. But you are removing the reservation and starting DMA on memory we have told the crash kernel it can use. > I know I missed the part that freeing memory before loading, but if it is safe > before loading, how can it be unsafe after that? We tell the crash kernel when loading it, it can use all of the reserved memory. Only when you don't have a crash kernel loaded is that interesting. Eric