Hi Cliff, On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:49:19PM -0500, Cliff Wickman wrote: > > The MAX_MEMORY_RANGES of 64 is too small for a very large NUMA machine. > (A 512 processor SGI UV, for example.) > Gentlemen, > You may judge increasing MAX_MEMORY_RANGES to 1024 may be excessive > and I will not argue against setting it to maybe half of that. But a large > number is the easy cure, in lieu of sizing memory_range[] and > crash_memory_range[] dynamically. Agreed. > And fix a temporary workaround (hack) in load_crashdump_segments() that > assumes that 16k is sufficient for the size of the crashdump elf header. > This is too small for a machine with a large cpu count. A PT_NOTE is created > in the elf header for each cpu. > > And the below fiddling with temp_region is just to prevent compiler warnings. > > Diffed against kexec-tools-2.0.1 Could you provide a diff against the current git tree? In particular, I think that the temp_region fiddling has already been done. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/horms/kexec-tools.git;a=summary > Signed-off-by: Cliff Wickman <cpw at sgi.com> > > --- > kexec/arch/i386/kexec-x86.h | 2 +- > kexec/arch/x86_64/crashdump-x86_64.c | 19 +++++++++++++++---- > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > Index: kexec-tools-2.0.1/kexec/arch/i386/kexec-x86.h > =================================================================== > --- kexec-tools-2.0.1.orig/kexec/arch/i386/kexec-x86.h > +++ kexec-tools-2.0.1/kexec/arch/i386/kexec-x86.h > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > #ifndef KEXEC_X86_H > #define KEXEC_X86_H > > -#define MAX_MEMORY_RANGES 64 > +#define MAX_MEMORY_RANGES 1024 > > enum coretype { > CORE_TYPE_UNDEF = 0, > Index: kexec-tools-2.0.1/kexec/arch/x86_64/crashdump-x86_64.c > =================================================================== > --- kexec-tools-2.0.1.orig/kexec/arch/x86_64/crashdump-x86_64.c > +++ kexec-tools-2.0.1/kexec/arch/x86_64/crashdump-x86_64.c > @@ -268,6 +268,9 @@ static int exclude_region(int *nr_ranges > { > int i, j, tidx = -1; > struct memory_range temp_region; > + temp_region.start = 0; > + temp_region.end = 0; > + temp_region.type = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < (*nr_ranges); i++) { > unsigned long long mstart, mend; > @@ -403,6 +406,7 @@ static int delete_memmap(struct memory_r > memmap_p[i].end = addr - 1; > temp_region.start = addr + size; > temp_region.end = mend; > + temp_region.type = memmap_p[i].type; > operation = 1; > tidx = i; > break; > @@ -580,7 +584,7 @@ int load_crashdump_segments(struct kexec > unsigned long max_addr, unsigned long min_base) > { > void *tmp; > - unsigned long sz, elfcorehdr; > + unsigned long sz, bufsz, memsz, elfcorehdr; > int nr_ranges, align = 1024, i; > struct memory_range *mem_range, *memmap_p; > > @@ -613,9 +617,10 @@ int load_crashdump_segments(struct kexec > /* Create elf header segment and store crash image data. */ > if (crash_create_elf64_headers(info, &elf_info, > crash_memory_range, nr_ranges, > - &tmp, &sz, > + &tmp, &bufsz, > ELF_CORE_HEADER_ALIGN) < 0) > return -1; > + /* the size of the elf headers allocated is returned in 'bufsz' */ > > /* Hack: With some ld versions (GNU ld version 2.14.90.0.4 20030523), > * vmlinux program headers show a gap of two pages between bss segment > @@ -624,9 +629,15 @@ int load_crashdump_segments(struct kexec > * elf core header segment to 16K to avoid being placed in such gaps. > * This is a makeshift solution until it is fixed in kernel. > */ > - elfcorehdr = add_buffer(info, tmp, sz, 16*1024, align, min_base, > + if (bufsz < (16*1024)) > + /* bufsize is big enough for all the PT_NOTE's and PT_LOAD's */ > + memsz = 16*1024; > + /* memsz will be the size of the memory hole we look for */ > + else > + memsz = bufsz; I'm unsure of the reasoning between using 16*1024 at all? Can we just always use memsz = bufsz? > + elfcorehdr = add_buffer(info, tmp, bufsz, memsz, align, min_base, > max_addr, -1); > - if (delete_memmap(memmap_p, elfcorehdr, sz) < 0) > + if (delete_memmap(memmap_p, elfcorehdr, memsz) < 0) > return -1; > cmdline_add_memmap(mod_cmdline, memmap_p); > cmdline_add_elfcorehdr(mod_cmdline, elfcorehdr); > > _______________________________________________ > kexec mailing list > kexec at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
