Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: kdump: simplify the reservation behaviour of crashkernel=,high

[Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>]

On 03/02/23 at 11:32am, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
......
> > @@ -166,31 +169,51 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> >  	/* User specifies base address explicitly. */
> >  	if (crash_base) {
> >  		fixed_base = true;
> > +		search_base = crash_base;
> >  		crash_max = crash_base + crash_size;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  retry:
> >  	crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN,
> > -					       crash_base, crash_max);
> > +					       search_base, crash_max);
> >  	if (!crash_base) {
> >  		/*
> > -		 * If the first attempt was for low memory, fall back to
> > -		 * high memory, the minimum required low memory will be
> > -		 * reserved later.
> > +		 * For crashkernel=size[KMG]@offset[KMG], print out failure
> > +		 * message if can't reserve the specified region.
> >  		 */
> > -		if (!fixed_base && (crash_max == CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX)) {
> > +		if (fixed_base) {
> > +			pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use.\n");
> 
> How about changing pr_info to pr_warn?
> 
> > +			return;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * For crashkernel=size[KMG], if the first attempt was for
> > +		 * low memory, fall back to high memory, the minimum required
> > +		 * low memory will be reserved later.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (!high && crash_max == CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX) {
> >  			crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX;
> > +			search_base = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
> >  			crash_low_size = DEFAULT_CRASH_KERNEL_LOW_SIZE;
> >  			goto retry;
> >  		}
> >  
> > +		/*
> > +		 * For crashkernel=size[KMG],high, if the first attempt was
> > +		 * for high memory, fall back to low memory.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (high && crash_max == CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX) {
> 
> Adding unlikely to indicate that it is rare would be better.
> 
> if (unlikely(high && crash_max == CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX))

Rethink about this and checked code in kernel, seems likely|unlikely are
mostly used in highly frequent execution branch optimize code path, while 
crashkernel resevatoin is one time execution during boot, we may not
need to bother to add unlikely. What do you think?


> 
> > +			crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
> > +			search_base = 0;
> > +			goto retry;
> > +		}
> >  		pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n",
> >  			crash_size);
> >  		return;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	if ((crash_base > CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX - crash_low_size) &&
> > -	     crash_low_size && reserve_crashkernel_low(crash_low_size)) {
> > +	if ((crash_base >= CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX) && crash_low_size &&
> > +	     reserve_crashkernel_low(crash_low_size)) {
> >  		memblock_phys_free(crash_base, crash_size);
> >  		return;
> >  	}
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
>   Zhen Lei
> 


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel