On 2021/12/31 17:22, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/12/30 19:08, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021/12/30 18:40, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 06:14:59PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Dave, Baoquan, Borislav:
>>>> What do you think about the introduction of parse_crashkernel_high_low()? If everyone
>>>> doesn't object, I'll bring it to the next version. But I'll make some adjustments to the
>>>> patches, see below. If there's any objection, I still strongly recommend removing the
>>>> parameters "system_ram" and "crash_base" of parse_crashkernel_{high,low}().
>>>>
>>>> How about splitting __parse_crashkernel() into two parts? One for parsing
>>>> "crashkernel=X[@offset]", another one for parsing "crashkernel=X,{high,low}" and other
>>>> suffixes in the future. So the parameter requirements are clear at the lowest level.
>>>
>>> First of all, please do not top post!
>>>
>>> Now, I already explained to you what I'd like to see:
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/Ycs3kpZD/vpoo1AX@xxxxxxx
>>>
>>> yet you still don't get it.
>>>
>>> So let me make myself clear: in its current form, this is not really an
>>> improvement so for all x86 changes:
>>>
>>> NAKed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Borislav:
> I'm sorry to bother you again. Do you mind if I make the following changes?
> I can't stand so many comments appearing twice. Even if the size needs to be
> changed in the future, mode "low_size = CRASH_LOW_SIZE_MIN + <increment>" can
> be used for adaptation without affecting other architectures.
I rethink it, the default value of default_nslabs is IO_TLB_DEFAULT_SIZE=64M.
The value of default_nslabs can only be changed by swiotlb_adjust_size() and
bootup command line option "swiotlb=". Currently, swiotlb_adjust_size() is
invoked only on x86, so I can just ignore it on arm64. Then, 64M is much
smaller than 256M, the first kernel works fine with the default 64M on arm64,
and I don't think the second kernel needs to grow to 256M. Therefore, I think
swiotlb_adjust_size() is probably a pseudo requirement for arm64.
So I will directly use 256M on arm64. If anyone gets into trouble, he/she can
add it back. Besides, there is also "crashkernel=Y,low" can be used.
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index e04f5e6eb33f453..da485ee51a9929e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -428,16 +428,7 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
> /* crashkernel=Y,low */
> ret = parse_crashkernel_low(boot_command_line, low_mem_limit, &low_size, &base);
> if (ret) {
> - /*
> - * two parts from kernel/dma/swiotlb.c:
> - * -swiotlb size: user-specified with swiotlb= or default.
> - *
> - * -swiotlb overflow buffer: now hardcoded to 32k. We round it
> - * to 8M for other buffers that may need to stay low too. Also
> - * make sure we allocate enough extra low memory so that we
> - * don't run out of DMA buffers for 32-bit devices.
> - */
> - low_size = max(swiotlb_size_or_default() + (8UL << 20), 256UL << 20);
> + low_size = CRASH_LOW_SIZE_MIN;
> } else {
> /* passed with crashkernel=0,low ? */
> if (!low_size)
> diff --git a/include/linux/crash_core.h b/include/linux/crash_core.h
> index de62a722431e7db..c85b15814312b7e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/crash_core.h
> +++ b/include/linux/crash_core.h
> @@ -69,6 +69,17 @@ phys_addr_t paddr_vmcoreinfo_note(void);
> #define VMCOREINFO_CONFIG(name) \
> vmcoreinfo_append_str("CONFIG_%s=y\n", #name)
>
> +/*
> + * two parts from kernel/dma/swiotlb.c:
> + * -swiotlb size: user-specified with swiotlb= or default.
> + *
> + * -swiotlb overflow buffer: now hardcoded to 32k. We round it
> + * to 8M for other buffers that may need to stay low too. Also
> + * make sure we allocate enough extra low memory so that we
> + * don't run out of DMA buffers for 32-bit devices.
> + */
> +#define CRASH_LOW_SIZE_MIN max(swiotlb_size_or_default() + (8UL << 20), 256UL << 20)
> +
> extern unsigned char *vmcoreinfo_data;
> extern size_t vmcoreinfo_size;
> extern u32 *vmcoreinfo_note;
>
>
>>>
>>
>> OK, thanks for your immediate reply, so I can take less detours.
>>
>
--
Regards,
Zhen Lei
