On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 14:13, Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:01:27AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Sept 2023 at 19:06, Kirill A. Shutemov > > <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 01:49:14PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 11:17:12AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 17:16, Kirill A. Shutemov > > > > > <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 10:25:56PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 23:24, Kirill A. Shutemov > > > > > > > <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e820__end_of_ram_pfn() is used to calculate max_pfn which, among other > > > > > > > > things, guides where direct mapping ends. Any memory above max_pfn is > > > > > > > > not going to be present in the direct mapping. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e820__end_of_ram_pfn() finds the end of the ram based on the highest > > > > > > > > E820_TYPE_RAM range. But it doesn't includes E820_TYPE_ACPI ranges into > > > > > > > > calculation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Despite the name, E820_TYPE_ACPI covers not only ACPI data, but also EFI > > > > > > > > tables and might be required by kernel to function properly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Usually the problem is hidden because there is some E820_TYPE_RAM memory > > > > > > > > above E820_TYPE_ACPI. But crashkernel only presents pre-allocated crash > > > > > > > > memory as E820_TYPE_RAM on boot. If the preallocated range is small, it > > > > > > > > can fit under the last E820_TYPE_ACPI range. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Modify e820__end_of_ram_pfn() and e820__end_of_low_ram_pfn() to cover > > > > > > > > E820_TYPE_ACPI memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem was discovered during debugging kexec for TDX guest. TDX > > > > > > > > guest uses E820_TYPE_ACPI to store the unaccepted memory bitmap and pass > > > > > > > > it between the kernels on kexec. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No objections to this, but we might also simply drop E820_TYPE_ACPI > > > > > > > altogether: it is only used for EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY, which is > > > > > > > memory that can be used by the OS as ordinary RAM if it is not > > > > > > > interested in the contents (or has already consumed them). So this > > > > > > > could arguably be classified as E820_TYPE_RAM too. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hm. I'm not sure about this. E820_TYPE_ACPI also get tracked as > > > > > > IORES_DESC_ACPI_TABLES resource and get passed to the next kernel on > > > > > > kexec, regardless if it is crash kernel or not. I'm not sure we would not > > > > > > break anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, you're right. So this patch is necessary in any case. > > > > > > > > > > Do we also need the EFI side patch then? > > > > > > > > Yes, we need it to get it mapped into the crashkernel direct mapping. > > > > > > Ughh. The patch alone causes crash as EFI_ACPI_RELACLAIM_MEMORY is not > > > mapped into direct mapping during memory init. > > > > > > > It would be good if this boot path could be covered by lkp@ as well - > > currently, you are the only person testing this manually. The same > > applies to SEV-SNP by the way - there is zero coverage except for the > > manual testing that Boris or Tom Lendacky might do. > > It made me remember that I forgot attribute the finding: > > Reported-by: "Hongyu Ning" <hongyu.ning@xxxxxxxxx> > OK, I will add that next time I update the branch. > Hongyu tests linux-next periodically, but I agree we need to get LKP > working. > > I will try to get LKP going for TDX guest. > Yes, please. We are likely to run into such issues again if we don't have test coverage for this functionality. Thanks, Ard.
