Hi Bhupesh,
On 2020/7/3 3:22, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:20 PM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:44:20AM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
>>> commit bff3b04460a8 ("arm64: mm: reserve CMA and crashkernel in
>>> ZONE_DMA32") allocates crashkernel for arm64 in the ZONE_DMA32.
>>>
>>> However as reported by Prabhakar, this breaks kdump kernel booting in
>>> ThunderX2 like arm64 systems. I have noticed this on another ampere
>>> arm64 machine. The OOM log in the kdump kernel looks like this:
>>>
>>> [ 0.240552] DMA: preallocated 128 KiB GFP_KERNEL pool for atomic allocations
>>> [ 0.247713] swapper/0: page allocation failure: order:1, mode:0xcc1(GFP_KERNEL|GFP_DMA), nodemask=(null),cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0
>>> <..snip..>
>>> [ 0.274706] Call trace:
>>> [ 0.277170] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x208
>>> [ 0.280863] show_stack+0x1c/0x28
>>> [ 0.284207] dump_stack+0xc4/0x10c
>>> [ 0.287638] warn_alloc+0x104/0x170
>>> [ 0.291156] __alloc_pages_slowpath.constprop.106+0xb08/0xb48
>>> [ 0.296958] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x2ac/0x2f8
>>> [ 0.301530] alloc_page_interleave+0x20/0x90
>>> [ 0.305839] alloc_pages_current+0xdc/0xf8
>>> [ 0.309972] atomic_pool_expand+0x60/0x210
>>> [ 0.314108] __dma_atomic_pool_init+0x50/0xa4
>>> [ 0.318504] dma_atomic_pool_init+0xac/0x158
>>> [ 0.322813] do_one_initcall+0x50/0x218
>>> [ 0.326684] kernel_init_freeable+0x22c/0x2d0
>>> [ 0.331083] kernel_init+0x18/0x110
>>> [ 0.334600] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>>
>>> This patch limits the crashkernel allocation to the first 1GB of
>>> the RAM accessible (ZONE_DMA), as otherwise we might run into OOM
>>> issues when crashkernel is executed, as it might have been originally
>>> allocated from either a ZONE_DMA32 memory or mixture of memory chunks
>>> belonging to both ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32.
>> How does this interact with this ongoing series:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200628083458.40066-1-chenzhou10@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> (patch 4, in particular)
> Many thanks for having a look at this patchset. I was not aware that
> Chen had sent out a new version.
> I had noted in the v9 review of the high/low range allocation
> <https://lists.gt.net/linux/kernel/3726052#3726052> that I was working
> on a generic solution (irrespective of the crashkernel, low and high
> range allocation) which resulted in this patchset.
>
> The issue is two-fold: OOPs in memcfg layer (PATCH 1/2, which has been
> Acked-by memcfg maintainer) and OOM in the kdump kernel due to
> crashkernel allocation in ZONE_DMA32 regions(s) which is addressed by
> this PATCH.
>
> I will have a closer look at the v10 patchset Chen shared, but seems
> it needs some rework as per Dave's review comments which he shared
> today.
> IMO, in the meanwhile this patchset can be used to fix the existing
> kdump issue with upstream kernel.
Thanks for your work.
There is no progress on the issue for long time, so i sent my solution in v8 comments
and sent v9 recently.
I think direct limiting the crashkernel in ZONE_DMA isn't a good idea:
1. For parameter "crashkernel=Y", reserving crashkernel in first 1G memory will increase
the probability of memory allocation failure.
Previous discuss from https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/21/725:
"With ZONE_DMA=y, this config will fail to reserve 512M CMA on a server"
2. For parameter "crashkernel=Y@X", limiting the crashkernel in ZONE_DMA is unreasonable
for someone really want to reserve crashkernel from specified start address.
I have sent v10: https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg819408.html, any commets are welcome.
Thanks,
Chen Zhou
>
>>> Fixes: bff3b04460a8 ("arm64: mm: reserve CMA and crashkernel in ZONE_DMA32")
>>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Reported-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha <pkushwaha@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>> index 1e93cfc7c47a..02ae4d623802 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>> @@ -91,8 +91,15 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>>> crash_size = PAGE_ALIGN(crash_size);
>>>
>>> if (crash_base == 0) {
>>> - /* Current arm64 boot protocol requires 2MB alignment */
>>> - crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(0, arm64_dma32_phys_limit,
>>> + /* Current arm64 boot protocol requires 2MB alignment.
>>> + * Also limit the crashkernel allocation to the first
>>> + * 1GB of the RAM accessible (ZONE_DMA), as otherwise we
>>> + * might run into OOM issues when crashkernel is executed,
>>> + * as it might have been originally allocated from
>>> + * either a ZONE_DMA32 memory or mixture of memory
>>> + * chunks belonging to both ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32.
>>> + */
>> This comment needs help. Why does putting the crashkernel in ZONE_DMA
>> prevent "OOM issues"?
> Sure, I can work on adding more details in the comment so that it
> explains the potential OOM issue(s) better.
>
> Thanks,
> Bhupesh
>
>
> .
>
