From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9EE1C433F5 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 02:12:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:CC:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=WizRYX1OKcR2OSSI8R1Vln3Q6qZ39EUQu4bXCwzj15w=; b=tpzzhzrt4wqhrgVNXKwQLkrUpJ eGQjE/LiDZMVztnY3Dk1J4M1mhSGoxH81eKKplVQR+gkkAToUZ1LbrYaeTqSWPC/3oJwnRus8C/Gu oxY2ZPO605y2D7p+doXJhZS6VhXnD/p2YOcEs5eAKhyil2Bi4dH8l5ZkhuayJJu7S8c3q3pW6X2Np thr2ZjIh8tHwUejBM7s/nlY3OP+HHpA3mDmWRpe/xVEm6gQmIETdaOXuxH3R0N1xsi9j/3+8mn9rN IameHrmYhY65DLigo0CtUuP32Lr2ogtinYTgAK/NtKOSHlpMkpimmahhxNMd9MtOaomFAlaO0KGMA HGS/VSKg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mxJkt-00GMFG-97; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 02:10:55 +0000 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.189]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mxJkn-00GMCp-Mg; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 02:10:51 +0000 Received: from dggpemm500020.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4JDJZB3BGzz8vkc; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 10:08:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemm500006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.236) by dggpemm500020.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 10:10:47 +0800 Received: from [10.174.178.55] (10.174.178.55) by dggpemm500006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.236) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 10:10:46 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 02/10] x86: kdump: make the lower bound of crash kernel reservation consistent To: Catalin Marinas , Borislav Petkov CC: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , , "H . Peter Anvin" , , Dave Young , Baoquan He , Vivek Goyal , Eric Biederman , , Will Deacon , , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , , Jonathan Corbet , , Randy Dunlap , Feng Zhou , Kefeng Wang , "Chen Zhou" References: <20211210065533.2023-1-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <20211210065533.2023-3-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" Message-ID: <07e41d65-bc3a-49c4-c041-752f1765f37a@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 10:10:34 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.174.178.55] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) To dggpemm500006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.236) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20211214_181049_969534_D0523E68 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 13.51 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 2021/12/15 3:24, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 08:07:58PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 02:55:25PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: >>> From: Chen Zhou >>> >>> The lower bounds of crash kernel reservation and crash kernel low >>> reservation are different, use the consistent value CRASH_ALIGN. >> >> A big WHY is missing here to explain why the lower bound of the >> allocation range needs to be 16M and why was 0 wrong? > > I asked the same here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210224143547.GB28965@arm.com > > IIRC Baoquan said that there is a 1MB reserved for x86 anyway in the > lower part, so that's equivalent in practice to starting from > CRASH_ALIGN. > > Anyway, I agree the commit log should describe this. OK, I will add the description. > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel