public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: caiqian@redhat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	kexec <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kexec load failure introduced by "x86, memblock: Replace e820_/_early string with memblock_"
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:41:31 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CA12BAB.1040308@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CA129EB.5000309@zytor.com>

On 09/27/2010 04:34 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/27/2010 04:32 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On 09/27/2010 04:26 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 09/27/2010 04:20 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> x86 own version for find_area?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, double no.
>>>
>>> Same kind of crap: overloading an interface with semantics it shouldn't
>>> have.  The right thing is to introduce a new interface with carries the
>>> explicitly needed policy with it... e.g. memblock_find_in_range_lowest().
>>>
>>> That interface would have the explicit semantics of returning the lowest
>>> possible address, as opposed to any suitable address (which may change
>>> if policy requirements change.)
>>>
>>> The other question is why does kexec need this in the first place?  Is
>>> this due to a design bug in kexec or is there some fundamental reason
>>> for this?
>>
>> bzImage is used here. so need range below 4g.
>>
> 
> OK, so why don't you cap the range to 4 GiB and then pass that down to
> the existing interface?  That's different from "lowest possible address".

but if later bzImage will use 64 entry and kexec honor it, or use 64bit vmlinux directly.
and crashkernel=4096M, we could get failure again.

maybe something like this, will give it a try, hope kexec doesn't have other limitation.

[PATCH -v3] x86, memblock: Fix crashkernel allocation

Cai Qian found crashkernel is broken with x86 memblock changes
1. crashkernel=128M@32M always reported that range is used, even first kernel is small
   no one use that range
2. always get following report when using "kexec -p"
	Could not find a free area of memory of a000 bytes...
	locate_hole failed

The root cause is that generic memblock_find_in_range() will try to get range from top_down.
But crashkernel do need from low and specified range.

Let's limit the target range with rash_base + crash_size to make sure that
We get range from bottom.

-v3: don't use loop for find low one

Reported-and-Bisected-by: CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>

---
 arch/x86/kernel/setup.c |   19 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
+++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
@@ -518,17 +518,23 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(v
 	if (crash_base <= 0) {
 		const unsigned long long alignment = 16<<20;	/* 16M */
 
-		crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment, ULONG_MAX, crash_size,
-				 alignment);
+		crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment, 0xffffffff,
+				crash_size, alignment);
+
 		if (crash_base == MEMBLOCK_ERROR) {
-			pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
-			return;
+			crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(alignment,
+					 ULONG_MAX, crash_size, alignment);
+
+			if (crash_base == MEMBLOCK_ERROR) {
+				pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
+				return;
+			}
 		}
 	} else {
 		unsigned long long start;
 
-		start = memblock_find_in_range(crash_base, ULONG_MAX, crash_size,
-				 1<<20);
+		start = memblock_find_in_range(crash_base,
+				 crash_base + crash_size, crash_size, 1<<20);
 		if (start != crash_base) {
 			pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use.\n");
 			return;

  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-27 23:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1909915255.2046011285586388234.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
2010-09-27 11:21 ` kexec load failure introduced by "x86, memblock: Replace e820_/_early string with memblock_" caiqian
2010-09-27 22:22   ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-27 22:50     ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-09-27 23:20       ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-27 23:26         ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-09-27 23:32           ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-27 23:34             ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-09-27 23:41               ` Yinghai Lu [this message]
2010-09-28  0:53                 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-09-28  2:41                   ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-28  3:46                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-09-28  7:14                     ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-28 14:01                       ` Vivek Goyal
2010-09-28 13:54                     ` Vivek Goyal
     [not found] <870873343.2003871285555329846.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
2010-09-27  6:31 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-27  9:16   ` CAI Qian

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=4CA12BAB.1040308@kernel.org \
    --to=yinghai@kernel.org \
    --cc=caiqian@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /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