From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com, dyoung@redhat.com, paul.walmsley@sifive.com,
palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
chenjiahao16@huawei.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] crash: Fix riscv64 crash memory reserve dead loop
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:11:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZqywtegyIS/YXOVv@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240802090105.3871929-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
On 08/02/24 at 05:01pm, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> On RISCV64 Qemu machine with 512MB memory, cmdline "crashkernel=500M,high"
> will cause system stall as below:
>
> Zone ranges:
> DMA32 [mem 0x0000000080000000-0x000000009fffffff]
> Normal empty
> Movable zone start for each node
> Early memory node ranges
> node 0: [mem 0x0000000080000000-0x000000008005ffff]
> node 0: [mem 0x0000000080060000-0x000000009fffffff]
> Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x0000000080000000-0x000000009fffffff]
> (stall here)
>
> commit 5d99cadf1568 ("crash: fix x86_32 crash memory reserve dead loop
> bug") fix this on 32-bit architecture. However, the problem is not
> completely solved. If `CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX` on 64-bit
> architecture, for example, when system memory is equal to
> CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX on RISCV64, the following infinite loop will also occur:
Interesting, I didn't expect risc-v defining them like these.
#define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX dma32_phys_limit
#define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX memblock_end_of_DRAM()
>
> -> reserve_crashkernel_generic() and high is true
> -> alloc at [CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX, CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX] fail
> -> alloc at [0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX] fail and repeatedly
> (because CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX).
>
> Before refactor in commit 9c08a2a139fe ("x86: kdump: use generic interface
> to simplify crashkernel reservation code"), x86 do not try to reserve crash
> memory at low if it fails to alloc above high 4G. However before refator in
> commit fdc268232dbba ("arm64: kdump: use generic interface to simplify
> crashkernel reservation"), arm64 try to reserve crash memory at low if it
> fails above high 4G. For 64-bit systems, this attempt is less beneficial
> than the opposite, remove it to fix this bug and align with native x86
> implementation.
And I don't like the idea crashkernel=,high failure will fallback to
attempt in low area, so this looks good to me.
>
> After this patch, it print:
> cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x1f400000)
>
> Fixes: 39365395046f ("riscv: kdump: use generic interface to simplify crashkernel reservation")
> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
> ---
> kernel/crash_reserve.c | 9 ---------
> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/crash_reserve.c b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> index 5387269114f6..69e4b8b7b969 100644
> --- a/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> @@ -420,15 +420,6 @@ void __init reserve_crashkernel_generic(char *cmdline,
> goto retry;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * For crashkernel=size[KMG],high, if the first attempt was
> - * for high memory, fall back to low memory.
> - */
> - if (high && search_end == CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX) {
> - search_end = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
> - search_base = 0;
> - goto retry;
> - }
> pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n",
> crash_size);
> return;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
_______________________________________________
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: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com, dyoung@redhat.com, paul.walmsley@sifive.com,
palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
chenjiahao16@huawei.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] crash: Fix riscv64 crash memory reserve dead loop
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:11:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZqywtegyIS/YXOVv@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240802090105.3871929-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
On 08/02/24 at 05:01pm, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> On RISCV64 Qemu machine with 512MB memory, cmdline "crashkernel=500M,high"
> will cause system stall as below:
>
> Zone ranges:
> DMA32 [mem 0x0000000080000000-0x000000009fffffff]
> Normal empty
> Movable zone start for each node
> Early memory node ranges
> node 0: [mem 0x0000000080000000-0x000000008005ffff]
> node 0: [mem 0x0000000080060000-0x000000009fffffff]
> Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x0000000080000000-0x000000009fffffff]
> (stall here)
>
> commit 5d99cadf1568 ("crash: fix x86_32 crash memory reserve dead loop
> bug") fix this on 32-bit architecture. However, the problem is not
> completely solved. If `CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX` on 64-bit
> architecture, for example, when system memory is equal to
> CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX on RISCV64, the following infinite loop will also occur:
Interesting, I didn't expect risc-v defining them like these.
#define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX dma32_phys_limit
#define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX memblock_end_of_DRAM()
>
> -> reserve_crashkernel_generic() and high is true
> -> alloc at [CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX, CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX] fail
> -> alloc at [0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX] fail and repeatedly
> (because CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX).
>
> Before refactor in commit 9c08a2a139fe ("x86: kdump: use generic interface
> to simplify crashkernel reservation code"), x86 do not try to reserve crash
> memory at low if it fails to alloc above high 4G. However before refator in
> commit fdc268232dbba ("arm64: kdump: use generic interface to simplify
> crashkernel reservation"), arm64 try to reserve crash memory at low if it
> fails above high 4G. For 64-bit systems, this attempt is less beneficial
> than the opposite, remove it to fix this bug and align with native x86
> implementation.
And I don't like the idea crashkernel=,high failure will fallback to
attempt in low area, so this looks good to me.
>
> After this patch, it print:
> cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x1f400000)
>
> Fixes: 39365395046f ("riscv: kdump: use generic interface to simplify crashkernel reservation")
> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
> ---
> kernel/crash_reserve.c | 9 ---------
> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/crash_reserve.c b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> index 5387269114f6..69e4b8b7b969 100644
> --- a/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> @@ -420,15 +420,6 @@ void __init reserve_crashkernel_generic(char *cmdline,
> goto retry;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * For crashkernel=size[KMG],high, if the first attempt was
> - * for high memory, fall back to low memory.
> - */
> - if (high && search_end == CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX) {
> - search_end = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
> - search_base = 0;
> - goto retry;
> - }
> pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n",
> crash_size);
> return;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com, dyoung@redhat.com, paul.walmsley@sifive.com,
palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
chenjiahao16@huawei.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] crash: Fix riscv64 crash memory reserve dead loop
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:11:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZqywtegyIS/YXOVv@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240802090105.3871929-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
On 08/02/24 at 05:01pm, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> On RISCV64 Qemu machine with 512MB memory, cmdline "crashkernel=500M,high"
> will cause system stall as below:
>
> Zone ranges:
> DMA32 [mem 0x0000000080000000-0x000000009fffffff]
> Normal empty
> Movable zone start for each node
> Early memory node ranges
> node 0: [mem 0x0000000080000000-0x000000008005ffff]
> node 0: [mem 0x0000000080060000-0x000000009fffffff]
> Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x0000000080000000-0x000000009fffffff]
> (stall here)
>
> commit 5d99cadf1568 ("crash: fix x86_32 crash memory reserve dead loop
> bug") fix this on 32-bit architecture. However, the problem is not
> completely solved. If `CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX` on 64-bit
> architecture, for example, when system memory is equal to
> CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX on RISCV64, the following infinite loop will also occur:
Interesting, I didn't expect risc-v defining them like these.
#define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX dma32_phys_limit
#define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX memblock_end_of_DRAM()
>
> -> reserve_crashkernel_generic() and high is true
> -> alloc at [CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX, CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX] fail
> -> alloc at [0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX] fail and repeatedly
> (because CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX).
>
> Before refactor in commit 9c08a2a139fe ("x86: kdump: use generic interface
> to simplify crashkernel reservation code"), x86 do not try to reserve crash
> memory at low if it fails to alloc above high 4G. However before refator in
> commit fdc268232dbba ("arm64: kdump: use generic interface to simplify
> crashkernel reservation"), arm64 try to reserve crash memory at low if it
> fails above high 4G. For 64-bit systems, this attempt is less beneficial
> than the opposite, remove it to fix this bug and align with native x86
> implementation.
And I don't like the idea crashkernel=,high failure will fallback to
attempt in low area, so this looks good to me.
>
> After this patch, it print:
> cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x1f400000)
>
> Fixes: 39365395046f ("riscv: kdump: use generic interface to simplify crashkernel reservation")
> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
> ---
> kernel/crash_reserve.c | 9 ---------
> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/crash_reserve.c b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> index 5387269114f6..69e4b8b7b969 100644
> --- a/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> @@ -420,15 +420,6 @@ void __init reserve_crashkernel_generic(char *cmdline,
> goto retry;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * For crashkernel=size[KMG],high, if the first attempt was
> - * for high memory, fall back to low memory.
> - */
> - if (high && search_end == CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX) {
> - search_end = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
> - search_base = 0;
> - goto retry;
> - }
> pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n",
> crash_size);
> return;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-02 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-02 9:01 [PATCH -next] crash: Fix riscv64 crash memory reserve dead loop Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-02 9:01 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-02 9:01 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-02 10:11 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2024-08-02 10:11 ` Baoquan He
2024-08-02 10:11 ` Baoquan He
2024-08-06 19:10 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-06 19:10 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-06 19:10 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-06 19:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-06 19:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-06 19:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-08 7:56 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-08 7:56 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-08 7:56 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-09 1:56 ` Baoquan He
2024-08-09 1:56 ` Baoquan He
2024-08-09 1:56 ` Baoquan He
2024-08-09 9:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-09 9:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-09 9:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-09 10:15 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-09 10:15 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-09 10:15 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-13 8:40 ` Petr Tesařík
2024-08-13 8:40 ` Petr Tesařík
2024-08-13 8:40 ` Petr Tesařík
2024-08-13 12:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-13 12:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-13 12:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-08-13 13:33 ` Petr Tesařík
2024-08-13 13:33 ` Petr Tesařík
2024-08-13 13:33 ` Petr Tesařík
2024-08-07 1:40 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-07 1:40 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-07 1:40 ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-08-02 12:24 ` Alexandre Ghiti
2024-08-02 12:24 ` Alexandre Ghiti
2024-08-02 12:24 ` Alexandre Ghiti
2024-08-05 2:01 ` Jinjie Ruan
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=ZqywtegyIS/YXOVv@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=chenjiahao16@huawei.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=ruanjinjie@huawei.com \
--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.