On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 11:22:51AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> On 2022/5/6 1:01, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 05:18:42PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> >> From: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> There are following issues in arm64 kdump:
> >> 1. We use crashkernel=X to reserve crashkernel in DMA zone, which
> >> will fail when there is not enough low memory.
> >> 2. If reserving crashkernel above DMA zone, in this case, crash dump
> >> kernel will fail to boot because there is no low memory available
> >> for allocation.
> >>
> >> To solve these issues, introduce crashkernel=X,[high,low].
> >> The "crashkernel=X,high" is used to select a region above DMA zone, and
> >> the "crashkernel=Y,low" is used to allocate specified size low memory.
> >
> > Thanks for posting the simplified version, though the discussion with
> > Baoquan is still ongoing. AFAICT there is no fallback if crashkernel=
> > fails. The advantage with this series is cleaner code, we set the limits
> > during parsing and don't have to adjust them if some of the first
> > allocation failed.
>
> Yes, I'm currently implementing it in the simplest version, providing only
> the most basic functions. Because the conclusions of this part of the discussion
> are clear. I think I can send the fallback, default low size, and mapping optimization
> patches separately after this basic version is merged. These three functions can
> be discussed separately.
This works for me. If we decide to go for fallbacks, it can be done as a
separate patch.
> >> + ret = parse_crashkernel_high(cmdline, 0, &crash_size, &crash_base);
> >> + if (ret || !crash_size)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * crashkernel=Y,low can be specified or not, but invalid value
> >> + * is not allowed.
> >> + */
> >> + ret = parse_crashkernel_low(cmdline, 0, &crash_low_size, &crash_base);
> >> + if (ret && (ret != -ENOENT))
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> crash_size = PAGE_ALIGN(crash_size);
> >>
> >> @@ -118,8 +159,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> >> if (crash_base)
> >> crash_max = crash_base + crash_size;
> >>
> >> - /* Current arm64 boot protocol requires 2MB alignment */
> >> - crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, SZ_2M,
> >> + crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN,
> >> crash_base, crash_max);
> >> if (!crash_base) {
> >> pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n",
> >
> > I personally like this but let's see how the other thread goes. I guess
>
> Me too. This fallback complicates code logic more than just a little.
> I'm not sure why someone would rather add fallback than change the bootup
> options to crashkernel=X,[high|low]. Perhaps fallback to high/low is a better
> compatible and extended mode when crashkernel=X fails to reserve memory. And
> the code logic will be much clearer.
>
> //parse crashkernel=X //To simplify the discussion, Ignore [@offset]
> crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range()
> if (!crash_base || /* crashkernel=X is not specified */) {
> //parse crashkernel=X,[high,low]
> //reserve high/low memory
> }
>
> So that, the following three modes are supported:
> 1) crashkernel=X[@offset]
> 2) crashkernel=X,high crashkernel=X,low
> 3) crashkernel=X[@offset] crashkernel=X,high [crashkernel=Y,low]
The whole interface isn't great but if we add fall-back options, I'd
rather stick close to what x86 does. IOW, if crashkernel=X is provided,
ignore explicit high/low (so 3 does not exist).
(if I had added it from the beginning, I'd have removed 'high'
completely and allow crashkernel=X to fall-back to 'high' with an
optional explicit 'low' or 'dma' if the default is not sufficient; but I
think there's too much bikeshedding already)
> > if we want a fallback, it would come just before the check the above:
> >
> > if (!crash_base && crash_max != CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX) {
> > /* attempt high allocation with default low */
> > if (!crash_low_size)
> > crash_low_size = some default;
> > crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
>
> crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX; We should fallback to high memory now.
Yes, that's the idea.
Anyway, please post the current series with the minor updates I
mentioned and we can add a fallback patch (or two) on top.
Thanks.
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
