On 08/18/20 at 03:07pm, chenzhou wrote: > > > On 2020/8/10 14:03, Dave Young wrote: > > Hi, > > > >>> Previously I remember we talked about to use similar logic as X86, but I > >>> remember you mentioned on some arm64 platform there could be no low > >>> memory at all. Is this not a problem now for the fallback? Just be > >>> curious, thanks for the update, for the common part looks good. > >> Hi Dave, > >> > >> Did you mean this discuss: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/27/122? > > I meant about this reply instead :) > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/1/16/616 > Hi Dave, > > Sorry for not repley in time, I was on holiday last week. Hi, no problem, thanks for following up. > > The platform James mentioned may exist for which have no devices and need no low memory. > For our arm64 server platform, there are some devices and need low memory. > > I got it. For the platform with no low memory, reserving crashkernel will always fail. > How about like this: I think the question should leave to Catalin or James, I have no suggestion about this:) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > index a8e34d97a894..4df18c7ea438 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) > } > memblock_reserve(crash_base, crash_size); > > - if (crash_base >= CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX) { > + if (memstart_addr < CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX && crash_base >= CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX) { > const char *rename = "Crash kernel (low)"; > > if (reserve_crashkernel_low()) { > > > Thanks, > Chen Zhou > > > > > Thanks > > Dave > > > > > > . > > > > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
