Re: [PATCHv5] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X consistent with kaslr

From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, Daniel Vacek <neelx@redhat.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>,
	Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>,
	Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	yinghai@kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
	vgoyal@redhat.com, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X consistent with kaslr
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:01:38 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190108090138.GB18718@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190108080538.GB4396@rapoport-lnx>

Hi Mike,

On 01/08/19 at 10:05am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> I'm not thrilled by duplicating this code (yet again).
> I liked the v3 of this patch [1] more, assuming we allow bottom-up mode to
> allocate [0, kernel_start) unconditionally. 
> I'd just replace you first patch in v3 [2] with something like:

In initmem_init(), we will restore the top-down allocation style anyway.
While reserve_crashkernel() is called after initmem_init(), it's not
appropriate to adjust memblock_find_in_range_node(), and we really want
to find region bottom up for crashkernel reservation, no matter where
kernel is loaded, better call __memblock_find_range_bottom_up().

Create a wrapper to do the necessary handling, then call
__memblock_find_range_bottom_up() directly, looks better.

Thanks
Baoquan

> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 7df468c..d1b30b9 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -274,24 +274,14 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size,
>  	 * try bottom-up allocation only when bottom-up mode
>  	 * is set and @end is above the kernel image.
>  	 */
> -	if (memblock_bottom_up() && end > kernel_end) {
> -		phys_addr_t bottom_up_start;
> -
> -		/* make sure we will allocate above the kernel */
> -		bottom_up_start = max(start, kernel_end);
> -
> +	if (memblock_bottom_up()) {
>  		/* ok, try bottom-up allocation first */
> -		ret = __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(bottom_up_start, end,
> +		ret = __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(start, end,
>  						      size, align, nid, flags);
>  		if (ret)
>  			return ret;
>  
>  		/*
> -		 * we always limit bottom-up allocation above the kernel,
> -		 * but top-down allocation doesn't have the limit, so
> -		 * retrying top-down allocation may succeed when bottom-up
> -		 * allocation failed.
> -		 *
>  		 * bottom-up allocation is expected to be fail very rarely,
>  		 * so we use WARN_ONCE() here to see the stack trace if
>  		 * fail happens.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1545966002-3075-3-git-send-email-kernelfans@gmail.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1545966002-3075-2-git-send-email-kernelfans@gmail.com/
> 
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * __memblock_find_range_top_down - find free area utility, in top-down
> >   * @start: start of candidate range
> > -- 
> > 2.7.4
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
> 

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec