Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >>> This patch implements shrinking the reserved memory for crash kernel, >>> if it is more than enough. >>> >>> For example, if you have already reserved 128M, now you just want 100M, >>> you can do: >>> >>> # echo $((100*1024*1024)) > /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size >>> >> >> Getting closer (comments inline) >> >> Semantically this patch is non-contriversial and pretty >> simple, but still needs a fair amount of review. Can >> you put this patch at the front of your patch set. >> >> > > Sure, I will do it when I resend them next time. > > I add mm people into Cc. >>> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/kexec.c >>> =================================================================== >>> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/kexec.c >>> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/kexec.c >>> @@ -1083,6 +1083,76 @@ void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs) >>> } >>> } >>> +int kexec_crash_kernel_loaded(void) >>> +{ >>> + int ret; >>> + if (!mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex)) >>> + return 1; >>> >> >> We don't need trylock on this code path > > OK. > >> >>> + ret = kexec_crash_image != NULL; >>> + mutex_unlock(&kexec_mutex); >>> + return ret; >>> +} >>> + >>> +size_t get_crash_memory_size(void) >>> +{ >>> + size_t size; >>> + if (!mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex)) >>> + return 1; >>> >> >> We don't need trylock on this code path >> >> > > Hmm, crashk_res is a global struct, so other process can also > change it... but currently no process does that, right? > We still need the lock. Just doing trylock doesn't instead of just sleeping doesn't seem to make any sense on these code paths. >>> + size = crashk_res.end - crashk_res.start + 1; >>> + mutex_unlock(&kexec_mutex); >>> + return size; >>> +} >>> + >>> +int shrink_crash_memory(unsigned long new_size) >>> +{ >>> + struct page **pages; >>> + int ret = 0; >>> + int npages, i; >>> + unsigned long addr; >>> + unsigned long start, end; >>> + void *vaddr; >>> + >>> + if (!mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex)) >>> + return -EBUSY; >>> >> >> We don't need trylock on this code path >> >> We are missing the check to see if the crash_kernel is loaded >> under this lock instance. So I please move the kexec_crash_image != NULL >> test inline here and kill the kexec_crash_kernel_loaded function. >> > > Ok, no problem. > >> >>> + start = crashk_res.start; >>> + end = crashk_res.end; >>> + >>> + if (new_size >= end - start + 1) { >>> + ret = -EINVAL; >>> + if (new_size == end - start + 1) >>> + ret = 0; >>> + goto unlock; >>> + } >>> + >>> + start = roundup(start, PAGE_SIZE); >>> + end = roundup(start + new_size, PAGE_SIZE) - 1; >>> + npages = (end + 1 - start ) / PAGE_SIZE; >>> + >>> + pages = kmalloc(sizeof(struct page *) * npages, GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (!pages) { >>> + ret = -ENOMEM; >>> + goto unlock; >>> + } >>> + for (i = 0; i < npages; i++) { >>> + addr = end + 1 + i * PAGE_SIZE; >>> + pages[i] = virt_to_page(addr); >>> + } >>> + >>> + vaddr = vm_map_ram(pages, npages, 0, PAGE_KERNEL); >>> >> >> This is the wrong kernel call to use. I expect this needs to look >> like a memory hotplug event. This does not put the pages into the >> free page pool. >> > > Well, I also wanted to use an memory-hotplug API, but that will make the code > depend on memory-hotplug, which certainly is not what we want... > > I checked the mm code, actually what I need is an API which is similar to > add_active_range(), but add_active_range() can't be used here since it is marked > as "__init". > > Do we have that kind of API in mm? I can't find one. Perhaps we will need to remove __init from add_active_range. I know the logic but I'm not up to speed on the mm pieces at the moment. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |