From: Avnish Chouhan <avnish@linux.ibm.com>
To: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Brian King <brking@linux.ibm.com>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/fadump: fix additional param memory reservation for HASH MMU
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:54:33 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <773fec68e97a408de6871eb3d2c2ac61@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6322511c-e56a-4f4c-9b13-efec018cb3a7@linux.ibm.com>
On 2025-01-23 15:26, Hari Bathini wrote:
> On 20/01/25 11:05 pm, Sourabh Jain wrote:
>> Commit 683eab94da75bc ("powerpc/fadump: setup additional parameters
>> for
>> dump capture kernel") introduced the additional parameter feature in
>> fadump for HASH MMU with the understanding that GRUB does not use the
>> memory area between 640MB and 768MB for its operation.
>>
>> However, the patch ("powerpc: increase MIN RMA size for CAS
>> negotiation") changes the MIN RMA size to 768MB, allowing GRUB to use
>> memory up to 768MB. This makes the fadump reservation for the
>> additional
>> parameter feature for HASH MMU unreliable.
>>
>> To address this, adjust the memory range for the additional parameter
>> in
>> fadump for HASH MMU. This will ensure that GRUB does not overwrite the
>> memory reserved for fadump's additional parameter in HASH MMU.
>>
>
>> The new policy for the memory range for the additional parameter in
>> HASH
>> MMU is that the first memory block must be larger than the MIN_RMA
>> size,
>> as the bootloader can use memory up to the MIN_RMA size. The range
>> should be between MIN_RMA and the RMA size (ppc64_rma_size), and it
>> must
>> not overlap with the fadump reserved area.
>
> IIRC, even memory above MIN_RMA is used by the bootloader except for
> 640MB to 768MB (assuming RMA size is >768MB). So, how does this change
> guarantee that the bootloader is not using memory reserved for
> bootargs?
>
> Avnish, earlier, bootloader was using RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE (128MB)
> starting
> top-down at 768MB earlier. With MIN_RMA changed to 768MB, is bootloader
> still using the concept of RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE to set aside some memory
> for kernel to use. If yes, where exactly is it allocating this space
> now? Also, rtas instantiates top-down at 768MB. Would that not have
> a conflict with grub allocations without RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE at 768MB?
>
> - Hari
Hi Hari,
The RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE is the space left aside by Grub is within the
MIN_RMA size. Grub won't use memory beyond the MIN_RMA. With this
change, we haven't changed the RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE behavior. Grub will
still keep the 128 MB space in MIN_RMA for loading stock kernel and
initrd.
For your RTAS query, as it gets initiated just below the MIN_RMA. So it
will not have any impact with this RMA size change.
**
When MIN_RMA is 768MB, rtas will be instantiate at 0x000000002ec50000
(approximately at 748 MB).
**
Thank you!
Regards,
Avnish Chouhan
>
>>
>> Cc: Avnish Chouhan <avnish@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Brian King <brking@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
>> Cc: Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c
>> b/arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c
>> index 4b371c738213..5831f3ec8561 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/fadump.c
>> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
>> #include <asm/fadump-internal.h>
>> #include <asm/setup.h>
>> #include <asm/interrupt.h>
>> +#include <asm/prom.h>
>> /*
>> * The CPU who acquired the lock to trigger the fadump crash should
>> @@ -1764,19 +1765,19 @@ void __init fadump_setup_param_area(void)
>> range_end = memblock_end_of_DRAM();
>> } else {
>> /*
>> - * Passing additional parameters is supported for hash MMU only
>> - * if the first memory block size is 768MB or higher.
>> + * Memory range for passing additional parameters for HASH MMU
>> + * must meet the following conditions:
>> + * 1. The first memory block size must be higher than the
>> + * minimum RMA (MIN_RMA) size. Bootloader can use memory
>> + * up to RMA size. So it should be avoided.
>> + * 2. The range should be between MIN_RMA and RMA size
>> (ppc64_rma_size)
>> + * 3. It must not overlap with the fadump reserved area.
>> */
>> - if (ppc64_rma_size < 0x30000000)
>> + if (ppc64_rma_size < MIN_RMA*1024*1024)
>> return;
>> - /*
>> - * 640 MB to 768 MB is not used by PFW/bootloader. So, try
>> reserving
>> - * memory for passing additional parameters in this range to avoid
>> - * being stomped on by PFW/bootloader.
>> - */
>> - range_start = 0x2A000000;
>> - range_end = range_start + 0x4000000;
>> + range_start = MIN_RMA * 1024 * 1024;
>> + range_end = min(ppc64_rma_size, fw_dump.boot_mem_top);
>> }
>> fw_dump.param_area = memblock_phys_alloc_range(COMMAND_LINE_SIZE,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-23 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-20 17:34 [PATCH 0/2] powerpc/fadump: fix additional parameter for HASH MMU Sourabh Jain
2025-01-20 17:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: export MIN RMA size Sourabh Jain
2025-01-20 17:35 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/fadump: fix additional param memory reservation for HASH MMU Sourabh Jain
2025-01-23 6:58 ` Mahesh J Salgaonkar
2025-01-24 3:34 ` Sourabh Jain
2025-01-23 9:56 ` Hari Bathini
2025-01-23 14:24 ` Avnish Chouhan [this message]
2025-01-31 15:14 ` Hari Bathini
2025-02-04 5:28 ` Avnish Chouhan
2025-02-04 6:27 ` Hari Bathini
2025-02-04 8:37 ` Avnish Chouhan
2025-02-10 6:44 ` Hari Bathini
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=773fec68e97a408de6871eb3d2c2ac61@linux.ibm.com \
--to=avnish@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=brking@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hbathini@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mahesh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=sourabhjain@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).