On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 02:47:54PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 4:46 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 11:00:02AM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > > Customer reported a bug on a high end server with many pcie devices, where > > > kernel bootup with crashkernel=384M, and kaslr is enabled. Even > > > though we still see much memory under 896 MB, the finding still failed > > > intermittently. Because currently we can only find region under 896 MB, > > > if w/0 ',high' specified. Then KASLR breaks 896 MB into several parts > > > randomly, and crashkernel reservation need be aligned to 128 MB, that's > > > why failure is found. It raises confusion to the end user that sometimes > > > crashkernel=X works while sometimes fails. > > > If want to make it succeed, customer can change kernel option to > > > "crashkernel=384M, high". Just this give "crashkernel=xx@yy" a very > > > limited space to behave even though its grammer looks more generic. > > > And we can't answer questions raised from customer that confidently: > > > 1) why it doesn't succeed to reserve 896 MB; > > > 2) what's wrong with memory region under 4G; > > > 3) why I have to add ',high', I only require 384 MB, not 3840 MB. > > > > > > This patch simplifies the method suggested in the mail [1]. It just goes > > > bottom-up to find a candidate region for crashkernel. The bottom-up may be > > > better compatible with the old reservation style, i.e. still want to get > > > memory region from 896 MB firstly, then [896 MB, 4G], finally above 4G. > > > > > > There is one trivial thing about the compatibility with old kexec-tools: > > > if the reserved region is above 896M, then old tool will fail to load > > > bzImage. But without this patch, the old tool also fail since there is no > > > memory below 896M can be reserved for crashkernel. > > > > > > [1]: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2017-October/019571.html > > > Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Tang Chen <tangchen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Daniel Vacek <neelx@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx, > > > Cc: vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx > > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > --- > > > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 9 ++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > > > index d494b9b..165f9c3 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > > > @@ -541,15 +541,18 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) > > > > > > /* 0 means: find the address automatically */ > > > if (crash_base <= 0) { > > > + bool bottom_up = memblock_bottom_up(); > > > + > > > + memblock_set_bottom_up(true); > > > > > > /* > > > * Set CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX upper bound for crash memory, > > > * as old kexec-tools loads bzImage below that, unless > > > * "crashkernel=size[KMG],high" is specified. > > > */ > > > crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN, > > > - high ? CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX > > > - : CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX, > > > - crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN); > > > + (max_pfn * PAGE_SIZE), crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN); > > > + memblock_set_bottom_up(bottom_up); > > > > Using bottom-up does not guarantee that the allocation won't fall into a > > removable memory, it only makes it highly probable. > > > > I think that the 'max_pfn * PAGE_SIZE' limit should be replaced with the > > end of the non-removable memory node. > > > Since passing MEMBLOCK_NONE, memblock_find_in_range() ->...-> > __next_mem_range(), there is a logic to guarantee hotmovable memory > will not be stamped over. > if (movable_node_is_enabled() && memblock_is_hotpluggable(m)) > continue; Thanks for the clarification, I've missed that. > Thanks, > Pingfan > > > > + > > > if (!crash_base) { > > > pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n"); > > > return; > > > -- > > > 2.7.4 > > > > > > > -- > > Sincerely yours, > > Mike. > > > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
