On 02/26/21 at 09:38am, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> chenzhou <chenzhou10@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On 2021/2/25 15:25, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> On 02/24/21 at 02:19pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 03:10:15PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
> >>>> Move CRASH_ALIGN to header asm/kexec.h for later use. Besides, the
> >>>> alignment of crash kernel regions in x86 is 16M(CRASH_ALIGN), but
> >>>> function reserve_crashkernel() also used 1M alignment. So just
> >>>> replace hard-coded alignment 1M with macro CRASH_ALIGN.
> >>> [...]
> >>>> @@ -510,7 +507,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> >>>> } else {
> >>>> unsigned long long start;
> >>>>
> >>>> - start = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, SZ_1M, crash_base,
> >>>> + start = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN, crash_base,
> >>>> crash_base + crash_size);
> >>>> if (start != crash_base) {
> >>>> pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use.\n");
> >>> There is a small functional change here for x86. Prior to this patch,
> >>> crash_base passed by the user on the command line is allowed to be 1MB
> >>> aligned. With this patch, such reservation will fail.
> >>>
> >>> Is the current behaviour a bug in the current x86 code or it does allow
> >>> 1MB-aligned reservations?
> >> Hmm, you are right. Here we should keep 1MB alignment as is because
> >> users specify the address and size, their intention should be respected.
> >> The 1MB alignment for fixed memory region reservation was introduced in
> >> below commit, but it doesn't tell what is Eric's request at that time, I
> >> guess it meant respecting users' specifying.
>
>
> > I think we could make the alignment unified. Why is the alignment system reserved and
> > user specified different? Besides, there is no document about the 1MB alignment.
> > How about adding the alignment size(16MB) in doc if user specified
> > start address as arm64 does.
>
> Looking at what the code is doing. Attempting to reserve a crash region
> at the location the user specified. Adding unnecessary alignment
> constraints is totally broken.
>
> I am not even certain enforcing a 1MB alignment makes sense. I suspect
> it was added so that we don't accidentally reserve low memory on x86.
> Frankly I am not even certain that makes sense.
>
> Now in practice there might be an argument for 2MB alignment that goes
> with huge page sizes on x86. But until someone finds that there are
> actual problems with 1MB alignment I would not touch it.
>
> The proper response to something that isn't documented and confusing is
> not to arbitrarily change it and risk breaking users. Especially in
> this case where it is clear that adding additional alignment is total
> nonsense. The proper response to something that isn't clear and
> documented is to dig in and document it, or to leave it alone and let it
Sounds reasonable. Then adding document or code comment around looks
like a good way to go further so that people can easily get why its
alignment is different than other reservation.
> be the next persons problem.
>
> In this case there is no reason for changing this bit of code.
> All CRASH_ALIGN is about is a default alignment when none is specified.
> It is not a functional requirement but just something so that things
> come out nicely.
>
>
> Eric
>
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
