From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: yinghai@kernel.org, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com,
kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X consistent with kaslr
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:27:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181221072736.GB2526@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181221071823.GA2526@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
On 12/21/18 at 03:18pm, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 12/14/18 at 12:07pm, 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@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> > Cc: yinghai@kernel.org,
> > Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com
> > Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org
> >
> > ---
> > v1->v2:
> > improve commit log
> > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 9 ++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> This is a bug fix and urged by our customer.
>
> I personally think crashkernel=xx@ is a generic synctax, the current
~~ s/@/M
> code making it search only under 896 MB seems not so reasonable.
>
> Ack this patch.
>
> Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
>
> Thanks
> Baoquan
>
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > index d494b9b..60f12c4 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) {
> > + if (!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);
> > + if (!memblock_bottom_up())
> > + memblock_set_bottom_up(false);
> > +
> > if (!crash_base) {
> > pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
> > return;
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
yinghai@kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X consistent with kaslr
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:27:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181221072736.GB2526@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181221071823.GA2526@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
On 12/21/18 at 03:18pm, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 12/14/18 at 12:07pm, 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@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> > Cc: yinghai@kernel.org,
> > Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com
> > Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org
> >
> > ---
> > v1->v2:
> > improve commit log
> > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 9 ++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> This is a bug fix and urged by our customer.
>
> I personally think crashkernel=xx@ is a generic synctax, the current
~~ s/@/M
> code making it search only under 896 MB seems not so reasonable.
>
> Ack this patch.
>
> Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
>
> Thanks
> Baoquan
>
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > index d494b9b..60f12c4 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) {
> > + if (!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);
> > + if (!memblock_bottom_up())
> > + memblock_set_bottom_up(false);
> > +
> > if (!crash_base) {
> > pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
> > return;
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-21 7:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-14 4:07 [PATCHv2] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X consistent with kaslr Pingfan Liu
2018-12-14 4:07 ` Pingfan Liu
2018-12-21 7:18 ` Baoquan He
2018-12-21 7:18 ` Baoquan He
2018-12-21 7:27 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2018-12-21 7:27 ` Baoquan He
2018-12-26 1:47 ` Dave Young
2018-12-26 1:47 ` Dave Young
2018-12-27 2:57 ` Pingfan Liu
2018-12-27 2:57 ` Pingfan Liu
2018-12-26 1:57 ` Dave Young
2018-12-26 1:57 ` Dave Young
2018-12-27 2:55 ` Pingfan Liu
2018-12-27 2:55 ` Pingfan Liu
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=20181221072736.GB2526@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=kernelfans@gmail.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--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.