public inbox for kexec@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>,
	Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:31:04 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130412143104.GA4301@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5166D18A.7090800@zytor.com>

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:06:50AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/11/2013 07:55 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> >> Currently ranges are passed via kernel boot parameters:
> >> memmap=exactmap memmap=X#Y memmap=
> >>
> >> Pass them via e820 table directly instead.
> > 
> > how to address "saved_max_pfn" referring in kernel?
> > 
> > kernel need to use saved_max_pfn from old e820 in
> > drivers/char/mem.c::read_oldmem()
> > 
> > mips and powerpc they are passing that from command line "savemaxmem="
> > 
> > x86 should use that too?
> > 
> 
> Oh bloody hell, yet another f-ing "max_pfn" variable.
> 
> The *only* one that makes any kind of sense is max_low_pfn (marking the
> cutoff to highmem)... the pretty much the rest of them are just plain wrong.
> 
> And I don't mean "mildly annoying", I mean "catastrophically wrong
> semantics".  In this case, it introduces a completely arbitrary
> distinction between a nonmemory range below a high water mark and a
> nonmemory range above that high water mark.  In fact, from reading the
> code it seems pretty clear that the device will blindly assume that
> anything below saved_max_pfn is memory and will try to map it
> cachable... which will #MC on quite a few machines.
> 
> This kind of crap HAS TO STOP.  Memory is discontiguous, deal with it
> and deal with it properly.

Agreed. saved_max_pfn is bad idea. Passing all the mappable memory of
old kernel as "RESERVED" (Or KDUMP_RESERVED or KDUMP_MEM or whatever) to
next kernel in e820 map sounds better. And next kernel can allow access
to RESERVED range using /dev/oldmem interface.

For backward compatibility with old kexec-tools we can probably retain
saved_max_pfn for some time. We can set saved_max_pfn to end of
memory range including "RESERVED" regions.  And this will be overwritten
if old kexec-tools have passed this parameter on command line. Also
whenever user passes saved_max_pfn on command line, we can do WARN_ONCE()
to upgrade to kexec-tools and let them know that saved_max_pfn will be
deprecated.

For issue of doing ioremap() on everything as cacheable, we should be
able to modify copy_olmem_page() and it should go through memory map
and check whether said pfn is mappable or not and what flags should
be used to map it.

I think this will again be problem with old kexec-tools. May be we check
of presence of atleast one "KDUMP_RESERVED" range in memory map. If none
is present, we know old kexec-tools were used and in that we can map
all pfn ioremap() blindly. We can do WARN_ONCE() and ask user to upgrade
the kexec-tools and after some time do away with this hack in
copy_oldmem_page() as well as remove saved_max_pfn.
> 
> I also have to admit that I don't see the difference between /dev/mem
> and /dev/oldmem, as the former allows access to memory ranges outside
> the ones used by the current kernel, which is what the oldmem device
> seems to be intended to od.
> 

I think one difference seems to be that /dev/mem assumes that validly
accessed memory is already mapped in kernel while /dev/oldmeme assumes
it is not mapped and creates temporary mappings explicitly.

Thanks
Vivek

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

  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-12 14:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-04-11 12:26 Cleanups and passing memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 1/5] kexec: X86: Show e820 table which gets passed in debug mode Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 2/5] kexec: X86: Enhance crash range debug output Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 3/5] kexec: X86: Do not exclude memory regions in each get_xy_memory_range() func Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 4/5] kexec: X86: make crash_memory_range global and store its no of elements in crash_ranges Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 12:26 ` [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter Thomas Renninger
2013-04-11 14:55   ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-11 15:06     ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 14:31       ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2013-04-12 14:56         ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 22:17           ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-12 23:17             ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-15  4:52             ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15  5:58               ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-15  7:58                 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 14:49                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 12:24     ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-12  9:56   ` Zhang Yanfei
2013-04-12 11:12     ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-15  9:05     ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-15 12:20       ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-15 19:48         ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-15 19:54           ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-16  7:52             ` Thomas Renninger
2013-04-16 11:59               ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-16 12:41               ` Zhang Yanfei
2013-04-12 15:24   ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-04-15 11:48     ` 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=20130412143104.GA4301@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=cpw@sgi.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=horms@verge.net.au \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=trenn@suse.de \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox