From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>, mpe@ellerman.id.au
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Pingfan Liu <piliu@redhat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
npiggin@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Wen Xiong <wenxiong@linux.ibm.com>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 01/14] blk-mq: add blk_mq_max_nr_hw_queues()
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 13:03:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZPa2hbRQUdFRNqr9@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <772c4140-3035-16d8-0253-f5893c3698e2@linux.ibm.com>
Hi Hari, Michael
On 08/11/23 at 01:23pm, Hari Bathini wrote:
>
>
> On 10/08/23 8:31 am, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 08/10/23 at 10:06am, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 09:18:27AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > On 08/10/23 at 08:09am, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 03:44:01PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > > I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but we can't just do random
> > > > > > is_kdump checks, and it's not going to get better by resending it again and
> > > > > > again. If kdump kernels limit the number of possible CPUs, it needs to
> > > > > > reflected in cpu_possible_map and we need to use that information.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you look at previous kdump/arch guys' comment about kdump usage &
> > > > > num_possible_cpus?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/CAF+s44RuqswbosY9kMDx35crviQnxOeuvgNsuE75Bb0Y2Jg2uw@mail.gmail.com/
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/ZKz912KyFQ7q9qwL@MiWiFi-R3L-srv/
> > > > >
> > > > > The point is that kdump kernels does not limit the number of possible CPUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) some archs support 'nr_cpus=1' for kdump kernel, which is fine, since
> > > > > num_possible_cpus becomes 1.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, "nr_cpus=" is strongly suggested in kdump kernel because "nr_cpus="
> > > > limits the possible cpu numbers, while "maxcpuss=" only limits the cpu
> > > > number which can be brought up during bootup. We noticed this diference
> > > > because a large number of possible cpus will cost more memory in kdump
> > > > kernel. e.g percpu initialization, even though kdump kernel have set
> > > > "maxcpus=1".
> > > >
> > > > Currently x86 and arm64 all support "nr_cpus=". Pingfan ever spent much
> > > > effort to make patches to add "nr_cpus=" support to ppc64, seems ppc64
> > > > dev and maintainers do not care about it. Finally the patches are not
> > > > accepted, and the work is not continued.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I am wondering what is the barrier to add "nr_cpus=" to power ach.
> > > > Can we reconsider adding 'nr_cpus=' to power arch since real issue
> > > > occurred in kdump kernel?
> > >
> > > If 'nr_cpus=' can be supported on ppc64, this patchset isn't needed.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As for this patchset, it can be accpeted so that no failure in kdump
> > > > kernel is seen on ARCHes w/o "nr_cpus=" support? My personal opinion.
> > >
> > > IMO 'nr_cpus=' support should be preferred, given it is annoying to
> > > maintain two kinds of implementation for kdump kernel from driver
> > > viewpoint. I guess kdump things can be simplified too with supporting
> > > 'nr_cpus=' only.
> >
> > Yes, 'nr_cpus=' is ideal. Not sure if there's some underlying concerns so
> > that power people decided to not support it.
>
> Though "nr_cpus=1" is an ideal solution, maintainer was not happy with
> the patch as the code changes have impact for regular boot path and
> it is likely to cause breakages. So, even if "nr_cpus=1" support for
> ppc64 is revived, the change is going to take time to be accepted
> upstream.
I talked to pingfan recently, he said he posted patches to add 'nr_cpus='
support in powerpc in order to reduce memory amount for kdump kernel.
His patches were rejected by maintainer because maintainer thought the
reason is not sufficient. So up to now, in architectures fedora/RHEL
supports to provide default crashkernel reservation value, powerpc costs
most. Now with this emerging issue, can we reconsider supporting
'nr_cpus=' in powerpc?
>
> Also, I see is_kdump_kernel() being used irrespective of "nr_cpus=1"
> support for other optimizations in the driver for the special dump
> capture environment kdump is.
>
> If there is no other downside for driver code, to use is_kdump_kernel(),
> other than the maintainability aspect, I think the above changes are
> worth considering.
Hi Hari,
By the way, will you use the ppc specific is_kdump_kernel() and
is_crashdump_kernel() in your patches to fix this issue?
Thanks
Baoquan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-05 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-08 10:42 [PATCH V3 0/14] blk-mq: fix wrong queue mapping for kdump kernel Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 01/14] blk-mq: add blk_mq_max_nr_hw_queues() Ming Lei
2023-08-09 13:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-08-10 0:09 ` Ming Lei
2023-08-10 1:18 ` Baoquan He
2023-08-10 2:06 ` Ming Lei
2023-08-10 3:01 ` Baoquan He
2023-08-11 7:53 ` Hari Bathini
2023-09-05 5:03 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2023-08-11 13:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 02/14] nvme-pci: use blk_mq_max_nr_hw_queues() to calculate io queues Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 03/14] ublk: limit max allowed nr_hw_queues Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 04/14] virtio-blk: limit max allowed submit queues Ming Lei
2023-08-10 19:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 05/14] scsi: core: add helper of scsi_max_nr_hw_queues() Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 06/14] scsi: lpfc: use blk_mq_max_nr_hw_queues() to calculate io vectors Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 07/14] scsi: mpi3mr: take blk_mq_max_nr_hw_queues() into account for calculating " Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 08/14] scsi: megaraid: " Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 09/14] scsi: mpt3sas: " Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 10/14] scsi: pm8001: " Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 11/14] scsi: hisi: " Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 12/14] scsi: ufs: limit max allowed nr_hw_queues Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 13/14] scsi: storvsc: " Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:42 ` [PATCH V3 14/14] blk-mq: add helpers for treating kdump kernel Ming Lei
2023-08-10 8:00 ` kernel test robot
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=ZPa2hbRQUdFRNqr9@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=hbathini@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mahesh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=piliu@redhat.com \
--cc=wenxiong@linux.ibm.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