Kexec Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org,  Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
	 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	 kexec@lists.infradead.org,  Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
	 x86@kernel.org,  rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com,
	security@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] Accept unaccepted kexec segments' destination addresses
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 12:49:15 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o6ygskb8.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <wk7tfjqtpzgmsvilgszlgqnqjgm5kg2vfxboaspd3qyfs6uqb3@nbgacwb3kcb6> (Kirill A. Shutemov's message of "Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:41:56 +0200")

"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 08:20:07AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 2/14/25 05:46, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> >> It sounds like you're advocating for the "slow guest boot" option.
>> >> Kirill, can you remind us how fast a guest boots to the shell for
>> >> modestly-sized (say 256GB) memory with "accept_memory=eager" versus
>> >> "accept_memory=lazy"? IIRC, it was a pretty remarkable difference.
>> > I only have 128GB machine readily available and posted some number on
>> > other thread[1]:
>> > 
>> >   On single vCPU it takes about a minute to accept 90GiB of memory.
>> > 
>> >   It improves a bit with number of vCPUs. It is 40 seconds with 4 vCPU, but
>> >   it doesn't scale past that in my setup.
>> > 
>> > I've mentioned it before in other thread:
>> > 
>> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ihzvi5pwn5hrn4ky2ehjqztjxoixaiaby4igmeihqfehy2vrii@tsg6j5qvmyrm
>> 
>> Oh, wow, from that other thread, you've been trying to get this crash
>> fix accepted since November?
>> 
>> From the looks of it, Eric stopped responding to that thread. I _think_
>> you gave a reasonable explanation of why memory acceptance is slow. He
>> then popped back up last month raising security concerns. But I don't
>> see anyone that shares those concerns.
>> 
>> The unaccepted memory stuff is also _already_ touching the page
>> allocator. If it's a dumb idea, then we should be gleefully ripping it
>> out of the page allocator, not rejecting a 2-line kexec patch.
>> 
>> Baoquan has also said this looks good to him.
>> 
>> I'm happy to give Eric another week to respond in case he's on vacation
>> or something, but I'm honestly not seeing a good reason to hold this bug
>> fix up.
>> 
>> Andrew, is this the kind of thing you can stick into mm and hold on to
>> for a bit while we give Eric time to respond?
>
> Andrew, Eric, can we get this patch in?

How goes the work to fix this horrifically slow firmware interface?

Eric



  reply	other threads:[~2025-03-04 19:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-13  9:49 [PATCH v2 0/1] Accept unaccepted kexec segments' destination addresses Yan Zhao
2024-12-13  9:54 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] kexec_core: " Yan Zhao
2025-02-13 15:50   ` Dave Hansen
2025-02-14 13:37     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2025-02-19 23:16   ` Dave Hansen
2025-01-13 10:01 ` [PATCH v2 0/1] " Kirill A. Shutemov
2025-01-13 11:12   ` Baoquan He
2025-01-13 14:59     ` Eric W. Biederman
2025-01-14  3:26       ` Baoquan He
2025-01-14  7:04       ` Yan Zhao
2025-01-14 10:08       ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2025-02-13 15:55       ` Dave Hansen
2025-02-14 13:46         ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2025-02-14 16:20           ` Dave Hansen
2025-03-04  8:41             ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2025-03-04 18:49               ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2025-03-04 19:16                 ` Dave Hansen
2025-03-12 20:33                   ` Dave Hansen
2025-02-19 23:03           ` Jianxiong Gao
2025-02-20  2:27           ` Ashish Kalra
2025-03-04 23:43     ` Andrew Morton
2025-03-04 23:53       ` Andrew Morton
2025-03-04 23:54         ` Andrew Morton
2025-03-13 12:06         ` Kirill A. Shutemov

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=87o6ygskb8.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org \
    --to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
    --cc=security@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox