From: takahiro.akashi@linaro.org (AKASHI Takahiro)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH Resend] ARM: kdump: makes second kernel use strict pfn_valid
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:39:51 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5386BA17.3080109@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <537ACA76.3090700@huawei.com>
Wang, Will
I'm now working on kdump support for arm64 on top of Geoff's kexec patch.
On 05/20/2014 12:22 PM, Wang Nan wrote:
> On 2014/5/20 0:09, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 02:54:03AM +0100, Wang Nan wrote:
>>> When SPARSEMEM and CRASH_DUMP both selected, simple pfn_valid prevents
>>> the second kernel ioremap first kernel's memory if the address falls
>>> into second kernel section. This limitation requires the second kernel
>>> occupies a full section, and elfcorehdr must resides in another section.
>>>
>>> This patch makes crash dump kernel use strict pfn_valid, removes such
>>> limitation.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> For a platform with SECTION_SIZE_BITS == 28 (256MiB) and
>>> crashkernel=128M at 0x28000000 in kernel cmdline, the second
>>> kernel is loaded at 0x28000000. Kexec puts elfcorehdr at
>>> 0x2ff00000, and passes 'elfcorehdr=0x2ff00000 mem=130048K' to
>>> second kernel. When second kernel start, it tries to use
>>> ioremap to retrive its elfcorehrd. In this case, elfcodehdr is at the
>>> same section of the second kernel, pfn_valid will recongnize
>>> the page as valid, so ioremap will refuse to map it.
>>
>> So isn't the issue here that you're passing an incorrect mem= parameter
>> to the crash kernel?
>>
>
> mem= parameter is generated by kexec-tools according to /proc/iomem, it is the size
> of reserved memory minus 1MiB. So I think what you mean is I passing an incorrect
> crashkernel= parameter?
Just FYI, kexec-tools doesn't seem to be implemented in proper way to support device-tree.
Once device-tree is handled correctly, we don't need to pass "mem=" parameter.
(Of course, only on machines that support device-tree.)
> I'll explain limitations on crash kernel reserved memory in the case of SPARSEMEM
> enabled, and show how *impractical* the 'correct' crashkernel will be.
>
> Use realview board for example.
>
> Limitation 1: crash kernel reservation kernel must be aligned with 0x08000000 (128MiB).
>
> This is because zImage determine final kernel address by (pc & 0xf8000000). If,
> for example, set crashkernel=64M at 0x29000000, then the second kernel itself
> overwrites first kernel's memory. We'll lost some memory in /proc/vmcore.
>
> Limitation 2: crash kernel must resides in different section with the first kernel.
>
> This is because the second kernel use ioremap for accessing first kernel's memory,
> and arm prevent a valid pfn be ioremapped. Which means a whole section must be reserved
> for the secton kernel. On realview, which is 256MiB.
>
> Limitation 3: the last 1MiB of reserved memory must be ioremappable.
>
> This is because the second kernel depeneds kexec-tools passing an elfheader as
> 'elfcorehdr' to instructs it generating /proc/vmcore. See fs/proc/vmcore.c. Kexec-tools
> simply uses the last 1MiB for it. The second kernel use ioremap to access it, force
> the header be put in another section.
We can avoid "Limitation 3" just by implementing arm's own elfcorehdr_read() with memcpy().
I can submit a patch, but can't test it for now.
-Takahiro AKASHI
> In realview board, the only possible correct setting should be 'crashkernel=257M at 0x20000000'.
> However, realview has only 1GiB memory, crash kernel consumes a quarter plus 1MiB. In addition, even
> set this parameter, crash kernel is still unusable because:
>
> crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use (0x20000000)
>
>> Will
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-29 4:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-19 1:54 [PATCH Resend] ARM: kdump: makes second kernel use strict pfn_valid Wang Nan
2014-05-19 16:09 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-20 3:22 ` Wang Nan
2014-05-22 1:53 ` Wang Nan
2014-05-29 4:39 ` AKASHI Takahiro [this message]
2014-05-29 10:09 ` Wang Nan
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=5386BA17.3080109@linaro.org \
--to=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).