linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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,


  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).