From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, WANG Chao <chaowang@redhat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86, kdump: Retore crashkernel= to allocate low
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:09:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130402190924.GA31760@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE9FiQUKqv_t-99JN_t=EGop2-Wbjd4Yb9vYvU_SbbNctG6Yeg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:42:09AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:19:42AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >> Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> >> @@ -603,9 +603,13 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes
> >> a memory unit (amount[KMG]). See also
> >> Documentation/kdump/kdump.txt for an example.
> >>
> >> + crashkernel_high=size[KMG]
> >> + [KNL, x86_64] range could be above 4G. Allow kernel
> >> + to allocate physical memory region from top, so could
> >> + be above 4G if system have more than 4G ram installed.
> >> crashkernel_low=size[KMG]
> >> - [KNL, x86_64] range under 4G. When crashkernel= is
> >> - passed, kernel allocate physical memory region
> >> + [KNL, x86_64] range under 4G. When crashkernel_high= is
> >> + passed, kernel could allocate physical memory region
> >> above 4G, that cause second kernel crash on system
> >> that need swiotlb later. Kernel would try to allocate
> >> some region below 4G automatically. This one let
> >
> > Hi Yinghai,
> >
> > I think there are still some issues with crashkernel= semantics.
> >
> > What if I specify both crashkernel_high= as well as crashkernel_low=.
> > Looks like crashkernel_low will be parsed only if crashkernel_high
> > reserved memory above 4G.
> >
> > So if one gives following command line.
> >
> > crashkernel=256M;high crashkernel=100M;low
> >
> > Final outcome will vary across systems. If system has all RAM below 4G
> > we will see only one 256M chunk reserved otherwise we will see one 256M
> > and one 100M chunk reserved. And a user might think that I asked you to
> > reserve two chunks. One 256M and otherr 100M.
>
> Yes, that is intentional.
Why it is intentional. It seems be to aberration from user's point of
view.
>
> If you like, I could remove that checking, just add the low.
>
> >
> > Also interesting is, what if user specifies both crashkernel=X and
> > crashkernel=Y;high. Looks like we will ignore crashkernel=X and honor
> > only crashkernel=Y;high.
>
> Yes, that is intentional.
Again, it is not clear that why are we prefering crashkernel=Y;high
over crashkernel=X. There needs to be clearly defined behavior.
>
> >
> > So the problem here is, do we want to parse multiple crashkernel=
> > command line and support reserving multiple ranges? Till 3.8 kernel
> > we did not do that. If we want to do that, then parsing crashkernel=
> > logic needs to be more generic.
> >
> > - I would say that to keep things simple, we can stick to semantics
> > of 3.8 kernel and say only first crashkernel= option is parsed and
> > acted upon. Rest are ignored. Trying to support multiple ranges will
> > require much more work.
>
> we could do that, but that is not necessary.
>
> >
> > - If we say that we will only parse first crashkernel= option, then
> > crashkernel=X;high and crashkernel0;low can not co-exist. I would say
> > use a new option to disable automatically reserved low memory. Say,
> > crashkernel_no_auto_low; That way it can co-exist with other
> > crashkernel= options without any conflict.
>
> I don't see any reason to make them co-exist.
We still need to define a clear behavior. What happens if user specifies
multiple crashkernel= options.
>
> aka:
> old kexec-tools stay with "crashkernel=X"
> new kexec-tools stay with
> 1. like old kexec tools
> 2. or "crashkernel=X,high" or "crashkernel=X,high crashkernel=Y,low",
> Y could be 100M or 0 etc.
You are thinking that user will specify only the options you are looking
for. But a user is free to specify all the possible inputs and we need
to define very clearly what happens in those cases.
>
> >
> > In fact this will also work with crashkernel=X, if we decide to extend
> > crashkernel=X to look for memory below 4G and look beyond 4G.
> >
> > - Support crashkernel=X;high as a new crashkernel= option.
>
> Actually we still support only one region that is could be high or low,
> and that extra low is just for workaround
> buggy system that does not support iommu with kdump.
Well, crashkernel=X;high crashkernel=Y;low will reserve two ranges (one
high and one low). So in some cases we are supporting 2 and in some
cases we are supporting 1 range.
So I still think that let us stick to old behavior of supporting one
crashkernel= option. Last crashkernel= option on command line will be
acted upon.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-02 19:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-02 17:19 [PATCH 0/4] x86, kdump: Fix crashkernel high with old kexec-tools Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 17:19 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86, kdump: Set crashkernel_low automatically Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 17:19 ` [PATCH 2/4] kexec: use Crash kernel for Crash kernel low Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 17:19 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86, kdump: Retore crashkernel= to allocate low Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 18:06 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 18:42 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 18:49 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 19:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 20:00 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 20:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 20:25 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 20:36 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-03 13:18 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-03 17:12 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-03 17:32 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-03 17:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-03 20:38 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-03 21:00 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-04 0:56 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-04 13:41 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-04 13:51 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-03 17:36 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-02 19:09 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2013-04-02 20:04 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-04-02 17:19 ` [PATCH] x86, kdump: Change crashkernel_high/low= to crashkernel=;high/low Yinghai Lu
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=20130402190924.GA31760@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=chaowang@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yinghai@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