From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>,
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:31:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130412143104.GA4301@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5166D18A.7090800@zytor.com>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:06:50AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/11/2013 07:55 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> >> Currently ranges are passed via kernel boot parameters:
> >> memmap=exactmap memmap=X#Y memmap=
> >>
> >> Pass them via e820 table directly instead.
> >
> > how to address "saved_max_pfn" referring in kernel?
> >
> > kernel need to use saved_max_pfn from old e820 in
> > drivers/char/mem.c::read_oldmem()
> >
> > mips and powerpc they are passing that from command line "savemaxmem="
> >
> > x86 should use that too?
> >
>
> Oh bloody hell, yet another f-ing "max_pfn" variable.
>
> The *only* one that makes any kind of sense is max_low_pfn (marking the
> cutoff to highmem)... the pretty much the rest of them are just plain wrong.
>
> And I don't mean "mildly annoying", I mean "catastrophically wrong
> semantics". In this case, it introduces a completely arbitrary
> distinction between a nonmemory range below a high water mark and a
> nonmemory range above that high water mark. In fact, from reading the
> code it seems pretty clear that the device will blindly assume that
> anything below saved_max_pfn is memory and will try to map it
> cachable... which will #MC on quite a few machines.
>
> This kind of crap HAS TO STOP. Memory is discontiguous, deal with it
> and deal with it properly.
Agreed. saved_max_pfn is bad idea. Passing all the mappable memory of
old kernel as "RESERVED" (Or KDUMP_RESERVED or KDUMP_MEM or whatever) to
next kernel in e820 map sounds better. And next kernel can allow access
to RESERVED range using /dev/oldmem interface.
For backward compatibility with old kexec-tools we can probably retain
saved_max_pfn for some time. We can set saved_max_pfn to end of
memory range including "RESERVED" regions. And this will be overwritten
if old kexec-tools have passed this parameter on command line. Also
whenever user passes saved_max_pfn on command line, we can do WARN_ONCE()
to upgrade to kexec-tools and let them know that saved_max_pfn will be
deprecated.
For issue of doing ioremap() on everything as cacheable, we should be
able to modify copy_olmem_page() and it should go through memory map
and check whether said pfn is mappable or not and what flags should
be used to map it.
I think this will again be problem with old kexec-tools. May be we check
of presence of atleast one "KDUMP_RESERVED" range in memory map. If none
is present, we know old kexec-tools were used and in that we can map
all pfn ioremap() blindly. We can do WARN_ONCE() and ask user to upgrade
the kexec-tools and after some time do away with this hack in
copy_oldmem_page() as well as remove saved_max_pfn.
>
> I also have to admit that I don't see the difference between /dev/mem
> and /dev/oldmem, as the former allows access to memory ranges outside
> the ones used by the current kernel, which is what the oldmem device
> seems to be intended to od.
>
I think one difference seems to be that /dev/mem assumes that validly
accessed memory is already mapped in kernel while /dev/oldmeme assumes
it is not mapped and creates temporary mappings explicitly.
Thanks
Vivek
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>,
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:31:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130412143104.GA4301@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5166D18A.7090800@zytor.com>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:06:50AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/11/2013 07:55 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> >> Currently ranges are passed via kernel boot parameters:
> >> memmap=exactmap memmap=X#Y memmap=
> >>
> >> Pass them via e820 table directly instead.
> >
> > how to address "saved_max_pfn" referring in kernel?
> >
> > kernel need to use saved_max_pfn from old e820 in
> > drivers/char/mem.c::read_oldmem()
> >
> > mips and powerpc they are passing that from command line "savemaxmem="
> >
> > x86 should use that too?
> >
>
> Oh bloody hell, yet another f-ing "max_pfn" variable.
>
> The *only* one that makes any kind of sense is max_low_pfn (marking the
> cutoff to highmem)... the pretty much the rest of them are just plain wrong.
>
> And I don't mean "mildly annoying", I mean "catastrophically wrong
> semantics". In this case, it introduces a completely arbitrary
> distinction between a nonmemory range below a high water mark and a
> nonmemory range above that high water mark. In fact, from reading the
> code it seems pretty clear that the device will blindly assume that
> anything below saved_max_pfn is memory and will try to map it
> cachable... which will #MC on quite a few machines.
>
> This kind of crap HAS TO STOP. Memory is discontiguous, deal with it
> and deal with it properly.
Agreed. saved_max_pfn is bad idea. Passing all the mappable memory of
old kernel as "RESERVED" (Or KDUMP_RESERVED or KDUMP_MEM or whatever) to
next kernel in e820 map sounds better. And next kernel can allow access
to RESERVED range using /dev/oldmem interface.
For backward compatibility with old kexec-tools we can probably retain
saved_max_pfn for some time. We can set saved_max_pfn to end of
memory range including "RESERVED" regions. And this will be overwritten
if old kexec-tools have passed this parameter on command line. Also
whenever user passes saved_max_pfn on command line, we can do WARN_ONCE()
to upgrade to kexec-tools and let them know that saved_max_pfn will be
deprecated.
For issue of doing ioremap() on everything as cacheable, we should be
able to modify copy_olmem_page() and it should go through memory map
and check whether said pfn is mappable or not and what flags should
be used to map it.
I think this will again be problem with old kexec-tools. May be we check
of presence of atleast one "KDUMP_RESERVED" range in memory map. If none
is present, we know old kexec-tools were used and in that we can map
all pfn ioremap() blindly. We can do WARN_ONCE() and ask user to upgrade
the kexec-tools and after some time do away with this hack in
copy_oldmem_page() as well as remove saved_max_pfn.
>
> I also have to admit that I don't see the difference between /dev/mem
> and /dev/oldmem, as the former allows access to memory ranges outside
> the ones used by the current kernel, which is what the oldmem device
> seems to be intended to od.
>
I think one difference seems to be that /dev/mem assumes that validly
accessed memory is already mapped in kernel while /dev/oldmeme assumes
it is not mapped and creates temporary mappings explicitly.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-12 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-11 12:26 Cleanups and passing memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 1/5] kexec: X86: Show e820 table which gets passed in debug mode Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 2/5] kexec: X86: Enhance crash range debug output Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 3/5] kexec: X86: Do not exclude memory regions in each get_xy_memory_range() func Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 4/5] kexec: X86: make crash_memory_range global and store its no of elements in crash_ranges Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 14:55 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-11 14:55 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-11 15:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-11 15:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 14:31 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2013-04-12 14:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-12 14:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 14:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 22:17 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-12 22:17 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-12 23:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 23:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-15 4:52 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 4:52 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 5:58 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-15 5:58 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-15 7:58 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 7:58 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 14:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-15 14:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 12:24 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-12 12:24 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-12 9:56 ` Zhang Yanfei
2013-04-12 11:12 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-15 9:05 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-15 12:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-15 19:48 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-15 19:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-16 7:52 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-16 11:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-16 12:41 ` Zhang Yanfei
2013-04-12 15:24 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-04-15 11:48 ` Thomas Renninger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130412143104.GA4301@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=cpw@sgi.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trenn@suse.de \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.