On Mon, 5 Sept 2022 at 14:08, Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 09/05/22 at 01:28pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 08:25:54PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > On 09/01/22 at 10:24am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > >
> > > max_zone_phys() only handles cases when CONFIG_ZONE_DMA/DMA32 enabled,
> > > the disabledCONFIG_ZONE_DMA/DMA32 case is not included. I can change
> > > it like:
> > >
> > > static phys_addr_t __init crash_addr_low_max(void)
> > > {
> > > phys_addr_t low_mem_mask = U32_MAX;
> > > phys_addr_t phys_start = memblock_start_of_DRAM();
> > >
> > > if ((!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA32)) ||
> > > (phys_start > U32_MAX))
> > > low_mem_mask = PHYS_ADDR_MAX;
> > >
> > > return low_mem_mast + 1;
> > > }
> > >
> > > or add the disabled CONFIG_ZONE_DMA/DMA32 case into crash_addr_low_max()
> > > as you suggested. Which one do you like better?
> > >
> > > static phys_addr_t __init crash_addr_low_max(void)
> > > {
> > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA32))
> > > return PHYS_ADDR_MAX + 1;
> > >
> > > return max_zone_phys(32);
> > > }
> >
> > I like the second variant better.
>
> Sure, will change to use the 2nd one . Thanks.
>
While I appreciate the effort that has gone into solving this problem,
I don't think there is any consensus that an elaborate fix is required
to ensure that the crash kernel can be unmapped from the linear map at
all cost. In fact, I personally think we shouldn't bother, and IIRC,
Will made a remark along the same lines back when the Huawei engineers
were still driving this effort.
So perhaps we could align on that before doing yet another version of this?
