All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, horms@verge.net.au,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
	vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86 e820: Introduce memmap=resetusablemap for kdump usage
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:11:34 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <510721C6.6080705@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6950516.1uefDuthAH@hammer82.arch.suse.de>

On 01/28/2013 05:05 PM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> 
> But this (converting usable memory to reserved one before usable kdump memory
> is added) will let machines run into problems again for which the check:
> "mmconf area must be in reserved memory" got added?
> 
> If, then memory which was usable before has to be converted to a special
> E820_KUMP (or whatever type) to make sure existing checks which look for
> "is reserved memory" still work the same way as in a productive kernel.
> 
> Advantage of this would be that the info what originally was usable
> memory is preserved and can be used in future kdump related patches.
> 
> So I guess the final patch should be:
>    - Add a new e820 type:
>         E820_KDUMP_RESERVED /* Originally usable memory where the crashed
>                                                     kernel kernel resided in */
>   - Use Yinghai's last posted patch, but instead of:
> +			e820_update_range(0, ULLONG_MAX, E820_RAM,
> +					  E820_RESERVED);
> ...
> +			e820_remove_range(start_at, mem_size, E820_RESERVED, 0);
> do:
> +			e820_update_range(0, ULLONG_MAX, E820_RAM,
> +					  E820_KDUMP_RESERVED);
> ...
> +			e820_remove_range(start_at, mem_size, E820_KDUMP_RESERVED, 0);
> 
>   - Come up with another memmap=kdump_reserve_ram memmap option name
>     or however it should get named...
> 
> If this proposal gets accepted, I can send a tested patch...
> 

Yes, this is much saner.  There really shouldn't need to be an option,
even; since the tools need to be modified anyway, just modify the actual
memory map data structure itself.

	-hpa



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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, vgoyal@redhat.com, horms@verge.net.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86 e820: Introduce memmap=resetusablemap for kdump usage
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:11:34 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <510721C6.6080705@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6950516.1uefDuthAH@hammer82.arch.suse.de>

On 01/28/2013 05:05 PM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> 
> But this (converting usable memory to reserved one before usable kdump memory
> is added) will let machines run into problems again for which the check:
> "mmconf area must be in reserved memory" got added?
> 
> If, then memory which was usable before has to be converted to a special
> E820_KUMP (or whatever type) to make sure existing checks which look for
> "is reserved memory" still work the same way as in a productive kernel.
> 
> Advantage of this would be that the info what originally was usable
> memory is preserved and can be used in future kdump related patches.
> 
> So I guess the final patch should be:
>    - Add a new e820 type:
>         E820_KDUMP_RESERVED /* Originally usable memory where the crashed
>                                                     kernel kernel resided in */
>   - Use Yinghai's last posted patch, but instead of:
> +			e820_update_range(0, ULLONG_MAX, E820_RAM,
> +					  E820_RESERVED);
> ...
> +			e820_remove_range(start_at, mem_size, E820_RESERVED, 0);
> do:
> +			e820_update_range(0, ULLONG_MAX, E820_RAM,
> +					  E820_KDUMP_RESERVED);
> ...
> +			e820_remove_range(start_at, mem_size, E820_KDUMP_RESERVED, 0);
> 
>   - Come up with another memmap=kdump_reserve_ram memmap option name
>     or however it should get named...
> 
> If this proposal gets accepted, I can send a tested patch...
> 

Yes, this is much saner.  There really shouldn't need to be an option,
even; since the tools need to be modified anyway, just modify the actual
memory map data structure itself.

	-hpa



  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-29  1:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-22 15:20 [PATCH 0/2] Only parse exactmap once, introduce memmap=resetusablemap Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 15:20 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 15:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86 e820: Check for exactmap appearance when parsing first memmap option Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 15:20   ` Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 19:33   ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-22 19:33     ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29  1:09   ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  1:09     ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  2:01     ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29  2:01       ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-22 15:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86 e820: Introduce memmap=resetusablemap for kdump usage Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 15:20   ` Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 15:54   ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-22 15:54     ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-22 16:23     ` Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 16:23       ` Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 16:32       ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-22 16:32         ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-22 20:06         ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-24  4:07           ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-24  4:07             ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29  1:05             ` Thomas Renninger
2013-01-29  1:05               ` Thomas Renninger
2013-01-29  1:11               ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2013-01-29  1:11                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  2:10                 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29  2:10                   ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29  2:11                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  2:11                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  2:19                     ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29  2:19                       ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29  2:20                       ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  2:20                         ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  2:27                       ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  2:27                         ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  2:31                         ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29  2:31                           ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29  3:33                           ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  3:33                             ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-29  9:47                   ` Thomas Renninger
2013-01-29  9:47                     ` 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=510721C6.6080705@zytor.com \
    --to=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=horms@verge.net.au \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=trenn@suse.de \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --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.