From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: George Guo <dongtai.guo@linux.dev>
Cc: pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, pratyush@kernel.org, graf@amazon.com,
changyuanl@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
chenhuacai@kernel.org, liukexin@kylinos.cn,
guodongtai@kylinos.cn, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] liveupdate: kho: calculate per-node scratch sizes before allocation
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2026 23:07:49 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ap3IFd2FVvfKkHkV@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260904025101.9959-1-dongtai.guo@linux.dev>
Hi George,
On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 10:51:01AM +0800, George Guo wrote:
> From: George Guo <guodongtai@kylinos.cn>
>
> The default percentage-based policy sizes scratch areas from the current
> kernel's MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN footprint. This is a reasonable heuristic for
> predicting the early memory demand of the next kernel.
>
> scratch_size_update() calculates the lowmem and global sizes before either
> area is allocated. However, kho_reserve_scratch() calculates each per-node
> size only after allocating the lowmem and global areas. Since memblock
> allocations are marked MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN, the per-node calculation
> includes those newly allocated scratch areas and scales them again.
>
> This feedback substantially inflates the per-node request. On a 1 GiB
> LoongArch QEMU guest, the relevant reservation baseline is about
> 98.45 MiB. With the default 200% scale and 32 MiB alignment, the old
> ordering allocates 224 MiB of lowmem scratch, then requests 672 MiB for
> node 0, for a total of 896 MiB. The node allocation fails and KHO is
> disabled. The same incorrect calculation is hidden on the tested 1 GiB
> x86 guest because its baseline is smaller and its memory map can satisfy
> the inflated request.
>
> Calculate and save all per-node sizes in the scratch descriptors before
> reserving any scratch areas, then use the saved sizes during allocation.
> This keeps the percentage heuristic while preventing scratch memory from
> becoming input to the sizing of more scratch memory. On the LoongArch
> guest, the aligned total is reduced from 896 MiB to 448 MiB.
>
> The KHO vmtest passes on 1 GiB LoongArch and x86 QEMU guests with this
> change.
This reads as LLM-generated text. Please add LLM attribution as per
https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html#attribution
> Fixes: 3dc92c311498 ("kexec: add Kexec HandOver (KHO) generation helpers")
> Reported-by: Kexin Liu <liukexin@kylinos.cn>
> Co-developed-by: Kexin Liu <liukexin@kylinos.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Kexin Liu <liukexin@kylinos.cn>
> Signed-off-by: George Guo <guodongtai@kylinos.cn>
> ---
> kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c b/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> index 7c4d86daf86d..39f489a258d9 100644
> --- a/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> +++ b/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> @@ -847,6 +847,17 @@ static void __init kho_reserve_scratch(void)
> goto err_disable_kho;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Calculate the per-node sizes before reserving any scratch areas.
> + * memblock allocations are marked MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN, so calculating
> + * them later would count the lowmem and global scratch areas as kernel
> + * allocations and scale them again.
> + */
> + i = 2;
> + for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY)
> + kho_scratch[i++].size = scratch_size_node(nid);
> + i = 0;
Ugh, this really does not look nice.
Can't we just calculated all the sizes first and than do the allocations?
> +
> /*
> * reserve scratch area in low memory for lowmem allocations in the
> * next kernel
> @@ -880,7 +891,7 @@ static void __init kho_reserve_scratch(void)
> * memoryless nodes, as we can not allocate scratch areas there.
> */
> for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
> - size = scratch_size_node(nid);
> + size = kho_scratch[i].size;
> addr = memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, SCRATCH_ALIGNMENT_BYTES,
> 0, MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE,
> nid, true);
> --
> 2.53.0
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-06 20:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-04 2:51 [PATCH 1/1] liveupdate: kho: calculate per-node scratch sizes before allocation George Guo
2026-09-06 20:07 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2026-09-07 10:24 ` George Guo
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=ap3IFd2FVvfKkHkV@kernel.org \
--to=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=changyuanl@google.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=dongtai.guo@linux.dev \
--cc=graf@amazon.com \
--cc=guodongtai@kylinos.cn \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liukexin@kylinos.cn \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=pratyush@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