From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86, memblock: Fix crashkernel allocation
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:05:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CABAF2A.5090501@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CABA6E5.6030601@zytor.com>
On 10/05/2010 03:29 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 02:57 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> +#define DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX 0x37FFFFFF
>> static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>> {
>> unsigned long long total_mem;
>> @@ -518,17 +519,28 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(v
>> if (crash_base <= 0) {
>> const unsigned long long alignment = 16<<20; /* 16M */
>>
>> - crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment, ULONG_MAX, crash_size,
>> - alignment);
>> + /*
>> + * Assume half crash_size is for bzImage
>> + * kexec want bzImage is below DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX
>> + */
>> + crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment,
>> + DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX + crash_size/2,
>> + crash_size, alignment);
>> +
>> if (crash_base == MEMBLOCK_ERROR) {
>> - pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
>> - return;
>> + crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment,
>> + ULONG_MAX, crash_size, alignment);
>> +
>> + if (crash_base == MEMBLOCK_ERROR) {
>> + pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>
> Okay, this *really* doesn't make sense.
>
> It's bad enough that kexec doesn't know what memory is safe for it, but
> why the heck the heuristic that "half is for bzImage and the rest can go
> beyond the heuristic limit"?
kdump want that range half for bzImage or half for initrd.
and kexec only check if bzImage can be put under small range.
> Can't we at least simply cap the region to
> the default, unless the kexec system has passed in some knowable
> alternative?
+ crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment,
+ DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX,
+ crash_size, alignment);
Furthermore, why bother having the "fallback" at all
> (certainly without having a message!?) If we don't get the memory area
> we need we're likely to randomly fail anyway.
if kexec is fixed to work with bzImage with 64bit entry...
>
> Let me be completely clear -- it's obvious from all of this that kexec
> is fundamentally broken by design: if kexec can't communicate the safe
> memory to use it's busted seven ways to Sunday and it needs to be fixed.
> However, in the meantime I can see capping the memory available to it
> as a temporary band-aid, but a fallback to picking random memory is
> nuts, especially on the motivation that "a future kexec version might be
> able to use it." If so, the "future kexec tools" should SAY SO.
ok, please check
[PATCH -v6] x86, memblock: Fix crashkernel allocation
Cai Qian found crashkernel is broken with x86 memblock changes
1. crashkernel=128M@32M always reported that range is used, even first kernel is small
no one use that range
2. always get following report when using "kexec -p"
Could not find a free area of memory of a000 bytes...
locate_hole failed
The root cause is that generic memblock_find_in_range() will try to get range from top_down.
But crashkernel do need from low and specified range.
Let's limit the target range with crash_base + crash_size to make sure that
We get exact range.
-v6: use DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX to limit area that could be used by bzImge.
Reported-and-Bisected-by: CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
---
arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 13 +++++++++----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
+++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
@@ -501,6 +501,7 @@ static inline unsigned long long get_tot
return total << PAGE_SHIFT;
}
+#define DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX 0x37FFFFFF
static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
{
unsigned long long total_mem;
@@ -518,8 +519,12 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(v
if (crash_base <= 0) {
const unsigned long long alignment = 16<<20; /* 16M */
- crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment, ULONG_MAX, crash_size,
- alignment);
+ /*
+ * kexec want bzImage is below DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX
+ */
+ crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment,
+ DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX, crash_size, alignment);
+
if (crash_base == MEMBLOCK_ERROR) {
pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
return;
@@ -527,8 +532,8 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(v
} else {
unsigned long long start;
- start = memblock_find_in_range(crash_base, ULONG_MAX, crash_size,
- 1<<20);
+ start = memblock_find_in_range(crash_base,
+ crash_base + crash_size, crash_size, 1<<20);
if (start != crash_base) {
pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use.\n");
return;
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86, memblock: Fix crashkernel allocation
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:05:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CABAF2A.5090501@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CABA6E5.6030601@zytor.com>
On 10/05/2010 03:29 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 02:57 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> +#define DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX 0x37FFFFFF
>> static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>> {
>> unsigned long long total_mem;
>> @@ -518,17 +519,28 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(v
>> if (crash_base <= 0) {
>> const unsigned long long alignment = 16<<20; /* 16M */
>>
>> - crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment, ULONG_MAX, crash_size,
>> - alignment);
>> + /*
>> + * Assume half crash_size is for bzImage
>> + * kexec want bzImage is below DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX
>> + */
>> + crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment,
>> + DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX + crash_size/2,
>> + crash_size, alignment);
>> +
>> if (crash_base == MEMBLOCK_ERROR) {
>> - pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
>> - return;
>> + crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment,
>> + ULONG_MAX, crash_size, alignment);
>> +
>> + if (crash_base == MEMBLOCK_ERROR) {
>> + pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>
> Okay, this *really* doesn't make sense.
>
> It's bad enough that kexec doesn't know what memory is safe for it, but
> why the heck the heuristic that "half is for bzImage and the rest can go
> beyond the heuristic limit"?
kdump want that range half for bzImage or half for initrd.
and kexec only check if bzImage can be put under small range.
> Can't we at least simply cap the region to
> the default, unless the kexec system has passed in some knowable
> alternative?
+ crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment,
+ DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX,
+ crash_size, alignment);
Furthermore, why bother having the "fallback" at all
> (certainly without having a message!?) If we don't get the memory area
> we need we're likely to randomly fail anyway.
if kexec is fixed to work with bzImage with 64bit entry...
>
> Let me be completely clear -- it's obvious from all of this that kexec
> is fundamentally broken by design: if kexec can't communicate the safe
> memory to use it's busted seven ways to Sunday and it needs to be fixed.
> However, in the meantime I can see capping the memory available to it
> as a temporary band-aid, but a fallback to picking random memory is
> nuts, especially on the motivation that "a future kexec version might be
> able to use it." If so, the "future kexec tools" should SAY SO.
ok, please check
[PATCH -v6] x86, memblock: Fix crashkernel allocation
Cai Qian found crashkernel is broken with x86 memblock changes
1. crashkernel=128M@32M always reported that range is used, even first kernel is small
no one use that range
2. always get following report when using "kexec -p"
Could not find a free area of memory of a000 bytes...
locate_hole failed
The root cause is that generic memblock_find_in_range() will try to get range from top_down.
But crashkernel do need from low and specified range.
Let's limit the target range with crash_base + crash_size to make sure that
We get exact range.
-v6: use DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX to limit area that could be used by bzImge.
Reported-and-Bisected-by: CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
---
arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 13 +++++++++----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
+++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
@@ -501,6 +501,7 @@ static inline unsigned long long get_tot
return total << PAGE_SHIFT;
}
+#define DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX 0x37FFFFFF
static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
{
unsigned long long total_mem;
@@ -518,8 +519,12 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(v
if (crash_base <= 0) {
const unsigned long long alignment = 16<<20; /* 16M */
- crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment, ULONG_MAX, crash_size,
- alignment);
+ /*
+ * kexec want bzImage is below DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX
+ */
+ crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment,
+ DEFAULT_BZIMAGE_ADDR_MAX, crash_size, alignment);
+
if (crash_base == MEMBLOCK_ERROR) {
pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
return;
@@ -527,8 +532,8 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(v
} else {
unsigned long long start;
- start = memblock_find_in_range(crash_base, ULONG_MAX, crash_size,
- 1<<20);
+ start = memblock_find_in_range(crash_base,
+ crash_base + crash_size, crash_size, 1<<20);
if (start != crash_base) {
pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use.\n");
return;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-05 23:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4CAA4BD5.4020505@kernel.org>
2010-10-04 21:57 ` [PATCH 1/4] memblock: Fix big size with find_region() Yinghai Lu
2010-10-06 6:28 ` [tip:core/memblock] memblock: Fix wraparound in find_region() tip-bot for Yinghai Lu
2010-10-04 21:57 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86, memblock: Fix crashkernel allocation Yinghai Lu
2010-10-05 21:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-05 21:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-05 22:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-05 22:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-05 23:05 ` Yinghai Lu [this message]
2010-10-05 23:05 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-10-06 6:27 ` [tip:core/memblock] " tip-bot for Yinghai Lu
2010-10-06 15:14 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-10-06 22:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-06 22:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-10-06 23:06 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-10-06 23:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-07 18:18 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-10-07 18:18 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-10-07 18:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-07 18:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-07 19:21 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-10-07 19:21 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-10-07 20:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-07 20:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-04 21:58 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86, memblock: Remove __memblock_x86_find_in_range_size() Yinghai Lu
2010-10-06 6:29 ` [tip:core/memblock] " tip-bot for Yinghai Lu
2010-10-04 21:58 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86, mm, memblock, 32bit: Make add_highpages honor early reserved ranges Yinghai Lu
2010-10-05 22:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-05 23:15 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-10-06 6:28 ` [tip:core/memblock] x86-32, memblock: " tip-bot for Yinghai Lu
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=4CABAF2A.5090501@kernel.org \
--to=yinghai@kernel.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/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.