On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 13:24, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 12:43:05PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 11:30, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 11:28, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 11:31:53AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > > > index f0599ae73b8d..829fa63c3d72 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > > > @@ -191,6 +191,14 @@ static void __init zone_sizes_init(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
> > > > > unsigned long max_zone_pfns[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {0};
> > > > >
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
> > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI)) {
> > > > > + extern unsigned int acpi_iort_get_zone_dma_size(void);
> > > >
> > > > Nitpick: can we add this prototype to include/linux/acpi_iort.h?
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + zone_dma_bits = min(zone_dma_bits,
> > > > > + acpi_iort_get_zone_dma_size());
> > > > > + arm64_dma_phys_limit = max_zone_phys(zone_dma_bits);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > max_zone_pfns[ZONE_DMA] = PFN_DOWN(arm64_dma_phys_limit);
> > > >
> > > > I think we should initialise zone_dma_bits slightly earlier via
> > > > arm64_memblock_init(). We'll eventually have reserve_crashkernel()
> > > > called before this and it will make use of arm64_dma_phys_limit for
> > > > "low" reservations:
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200907134745.25732-7-chenzhou10@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > >
> > >
> > > We don't have access to the ACPI tables yet at that point.
> >
> > Also, could someone give an executive summary of why it matters where
> > the crashkernel is loaded? As far as I can tell, reserve_crashkernel()
> > only allocates memory for the kernel's executable image itself, which
> > can usually be loaded anywhere in memory. I could see how a
> > crashkernel might need some DMA'able memory if it needs to use the
> > hardware, but I don't think that is what is going on here.
>
> I thought the crashkernel needs some additional reserved RAM as well to
> be able to run. It should not touch the original kernel's memory as it
> usually needs to dump it.
>
Looking at the code, it is definitely allocating memory for the kernel
itself (as it refers to the 2 MB alignment requirement), and given
that we used to require the kernel to be at the base of the linear
region to even be able to access all of memory, I suspect that we
might be able to relax this requirement. Not sure what that means for
the userland tools, though.
