On 12/29/21 at 03:27pm, Dave Young wrote:
> On 12/29/21 at 10:27am, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2021/12/29 0:13, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 09:26:01PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> > >> Use parse_crashkernel_high_low() to bring the parsing of
> > >> "crashkernel=X,high" and the parsing of "crashkernel=Y,low" together, they
> > >> are strongly dependent, make code logic clear and more readable.
> > >>
> > >> Suggested-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Yeah, doesn't look like something I suggested...
> > >
> > >> @@ -474,10 +472,9 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> > >> /* crashkernel=XM */
> > >> ret = parse_crashkernel(boot_command_line, total_mem, &crash_size, &crash_base);
> > >> if (ret != 0 || crash_size <= 0) {
> > >> - /* crashkernel=X,high */
> > >> - ret = parse_crashkernel_high(boot_command_line, total_mem,
> > >> - &crash_size, &crash_base);
> > >> - if (ret != 0 || crash_size <= 0)
> > >> + /* crashkernel=X,high and possible crashkernel=Y,low */
> > >> + ret = parse_crashkernel_high_low(boot_command_line, &crash_size, &low_size);
> > >
> > > So this calls parse_crashkernel() and when that one fails, it calls this
> > > new weird parse high/low helper you added.
> > >
> > > But then all three end up in the same __parse_crashkernel() worker
> > > function which seems to do the actual parsing.
> > >
> > > What I suggested and what would be real clean is if the arches would
> > > simply call a *single*
> > >
> > > parse_crashkernel()
> > >
> > > function and when that one returns, *all* crashkernel= options would
> > > have been parsed properly, low, high, middle crashkernel, whatever...
> > > and the caller would know what crash kernel needs to be allocated.
> > >
> > > Then each arch can do its memory allocations and checks based on that
> > > parsed data and decide to allocate or bail.
> >
> > However, only x86 currently supports "crashkernel=X,high" and "crashkernel=Y,low", and arm64
> > will also support it. It is not supported on other architectures. So changing parse_crashkernel()
> > is not appropriate unless a new function is introduced. But naming this new function isn't easy,
> > and the name parse_crashkernel_in_order() that I've named before doesn't seem to be good.
> > Of course, we can also consider changing parse_crashkernel() to another name, then use
> > parse_crashkernel() to parse all possible "crashkernel=" options in order, but this will cause
> > other architectures to change as well.
>
> Hi, I did not follow up all discussions, but if the only difference is
> about the low -> high fallback, I think you can add another argument in
> parse_crashkernel(..., *fallback_high), and doing some changes in
> __parse_crashkernel() before it returns. But since there are two
> many arguments, you could need a wrapper struct for crashkernel_param if
> needed.
>
> If you do not want to touch other arches, another function maybe
> something like parse_crashkernel_fallback() for x86 and arm64 to use.
>
> But I may not get all the context, please ignore if this is not the
> case. I agree that calling parse_crash_kernel* in the
> reserve_crashkernel funtions looks not good though.
>
> OTOH there are bunch of other logics in param parsing code,
> eg. determin the final size and offset etc. To split the logic out more
> things need to be done, eg. firstly parsing function just get all the
> inputs from cmdline string eg. an array of struct crashkernel_param with
> mem_range, expected size, expected offset, high, or low, and do not do
> any other things. Then pass these parsed inputs to another function to
> determine the final crash_size and crash_base, that part can be arch
> specific somehow.
>
> So I think you can unify the parse_crashkernel* in x86 first with just
> one function. And leave the further improvements to later work. But
> let's see how Boris think about this.
>
BTW, I would suggest to wait for reviewers to response (eg. one week at
least, or more due to the holidays) before updating another version
Do not worry to miss the 5.17. I would say take it easy if it will
miss then let's just leave with it and continue to work on the future
improvements. I think one reason this issue takes too long time is that it was
discussed some time but no followup and later people need to warm up
again. Just keep it warm and continue to engage in the improvements, do
not hurry for the specific mainline release.
Thanks
Dave
