On 2024/8/9 17:51, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 03:56:35PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> On 2024/8/7 3:34, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 08:10:30PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 06:11:01PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >>>>> And I don't like the idea crashkernel=,high failure will fallback to >>>>> attempt in low area, so this looks good to me. >>>> >>>> Well, I kind of liked this behaviour. One can specify ,high as a >>>> preference rather than forcing a range. The arm64 land has different >>>> platforms with some constrained memory layouts. Such fallback works well >>>> as a default command line option shipped with distros without having to >>>> guess the SoC memory layout. >>> >>> I haven't tried but it's possible that this patch also breaks those >>> arm64 platforms with all RAM above 4GB when CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX is >>> memblock_end_of_DRAM(). Here all memory would be low and in the absence >>> of no fallback, it fails to allocate. >>> >>> So, my strong preference would be to re-instate the current behaviour >>> and work around the infinite loop in a different way. >> >> Hi, baoquan, What's your opinion? >> >> Only this patch should be re-instate or all the 3 dead loop fix patch? > > Only the riscv64 patch that that removes the ,high reservation fallback > to ,low. From this series: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240719095735.1912878-1-ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > the first two fixes look fine (x86_32). The third one (arm32), not sure > why it's in the series called "crash: Fix x86_32 memory reserve dead > loop bug". Does it fix a problem on arm32? Anyway, I'm not against it > getting merged but I'm not maintaining arm32. If the first two patches > could be merged for 6.11, I think the arm32 one is more of a 6.12 > material (unless it does fix something). > > On the riscv64 patch removing the high->low fallback to avoid the > infinite loop, I'd rather replace it with something similar to the > x86_32 fix in the series above. I suggested something in the main if > block but, looking at the x86_32 fix, for consistency, I think it would > look better as something like: > > diff --git a/kernel/crash_reserve.c b/kernel/crash_reserve.c > index d3b4cd12bdd1..64d44a52c011 100644 > --- a/kernel/crash_reserve.c > +++ b/kernel/crash_reserve.c > @@ -423,7 +423,8 @@ void __init reserve_crashkernel_generic(char *cmdline, > if (high && search_end == CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX) { > search_end = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX; > search_base = 0; > - goto retry; > + if (search_end != CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX) > + goto retry; > } > pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n", > crash_size); > > In summary, just replace the riscv64 fix with something along the lines > of the diff above (or pick whatever you prefer that still keeps the > fallback). Hi, Andrew Could you please help to remove the riscv64 fix from your mm tree as Catalin suggested? we will give the new patch sooner. > > Thanks. > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
