virtualization.lists.linux-foundation.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, "Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Sven Schnelle" <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"Jason Wang" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	"Xuan Zhuo" <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com>,
	"Eugenio Pérez" <eperezma@redhat.com>,
	"Vivek Goyal" <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
	"Dave Young" <dyoung@redhat.com>,
	"Thomas Huth" <thuth@redhat.com>,
	"Cornelia Huck" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	"Janosch Frank" <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Claudio Imbrenda" <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Eric Farman" <farman@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 07/11] fs/proc/vmcore: introduce PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM to detect device RAM ranges in 2nd kernel
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 12:30:32 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zz63aGL7NcrONk+p@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3ed18ba1-e4b1-461e-a3a7-5de2df59ca60@redhat.com>

On 11/20/24 at 03:39pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.11.24 15:05, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 11/20/24 at 11:48am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 20.11.24 11:13, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > On 10/25/24 at 05:11pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > s390 allocates+prepares the elfcore hdr in the dump (2nd) kernel, not in
> > > > > the crashed kernel.
> > > > > 
> > > > > RAM provided by memory devices such as virtio-mem can only be detected
> > > > > using the device driver; when vmcore_init() is called, these device
> > > > > drivers are usually not loaded yet, or the devices did not get probed
> > > > > yet. Consequently, on s390 these RAM ranges will not be included in
> > > > > the crash dump, which makes the dump partially corrupt and is
> > > > > unfortunate.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Instead of deferring the vmcore_init() call, to an (unclear?) later point,
> > > > > let's reuse the vmcore_cb infrastructure to obtain device RAM ranges as
> > > > > the device drivers probe the device and get access to this information.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then, we'll add these ranges to the vmcore, adding more PT_LOAD
> > > > > entries and updating the offsets+vmcore size.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Use Kconfig tricks to include this code automatically only if (a) there is
> > > > > a device driver compiled that implements the callback
> > > > > (PROVIDE_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM) and; (b) the architecture actually needs
> > > > > this information (NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM).
> > > > > 
> > > > > The current target use case is s390, which only creates an elf64
> > > > > elfcore, so focusing on elf64 is sufficient.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    fs/proc/Kconfig            |  25 ++++++
> > > > >    fs/proc/vmcore.c           | 156 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >    include/linux/crash_dump.h |   9 +++
> > > > >    3 files changed, 190 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/Kconfig b/fs/proc/Kconfig
> > > > > index d80a1431ef7b..1e11de5f9380 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/proc/Kconfig
> > > > > +++ b/fs/proc/Kconfig
> > > > > @@ -61,6 +61,31 @@ config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_DUMP
> > > > >    	  as ELF notes to /proc/vmcore. You can still disable device
> > > > >    	  dump using the kernel command line option 'novmcoredd'.
> > > > > +config PROVIDE_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> > > > > +	def_bool n
> > > > > +
> > > > > +config NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> > > > > +	def_bool n
> > > > > +
> > > > > +config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> > > > > +	def_bool y
> > > > > +	depends on PROC_VMCORE
> > > > > +	depends on NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> > > > > +	depends on PROVIDE_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> > > > 
> > > > Kconfig item is always a thing I need learn to master.
> > > 
> > > Yes, it's usually a struggle to get it right. It took me a couple of
> > > iterations to get to this point :)
> > > 
> > > > When I checked
> > > > this part, I have to write them down to deliberate. I am wondering if
> > > > below 'simple version' works too and more understandable. Please help
> > > > point out what I have missed.
> > > > 
> > > > ===========simple version======
> > > > config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> > > >           def_bool y
> > > >           depends on PROC_VMCORE && VIRTIO_MEM
> > > >           depends on NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> > > > 
> > > > config S390
> > > >           select NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> > > > ============
> > 
> > Sorry, things written down didn't correctly reflect them in my mind.
> > 
> > ===========simple version======
> > fs/proc/Kconfig:
> > config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> >          def_bool y
> >          depends on PROC_VMCORE && VIRTIO_MEM
> >          depends on NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> > config NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> >          def y
> > 
> > arch/s390/Kconfig:
> > config NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> >          def y
> > ==================================
> 
> That would work, but I don't completely like it.
> 
> (a) I want s390x to select NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM instead. Staring at a
> bunch of similar cases (git grep "config NEED" | grep Kconfig, git grep
> "config ARCH_WANTS" | grep Kconfig), "select" is the common way to do it.
> 
> So unless there is a pretty good reason, I'll keep
> NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM as is.

That's easy to satify, see below:

============simple version=====
fs/proc/Kconfig:
config NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
        def n

config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
        def_bool y
        depends on PROC_VMCORE && VIRTIO_MEM
        depends on NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM

arch/s390/Kconfig:
config S390
        select NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
==============================

> 
> (b) In the context of this patch, "depends on VIRTIO_MEM" does not make
> sense. We could have an intermediate:
> 
> config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
>          def_bool n
>          depends on PROC_VMCORE
>          depends on NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> 
> And change that with VIRTIO_MEM support in the relevant patch.

Oh, it's not comment for this patch, I made the simple version based on
the whole patchset. When I had a glance at this patch, I also took
several iterations to get it after I applied the whole patchset and
tried to understand the whole code.

> 
> 
> I faintly remember that we try avoiding such dependencies and prefer
> selecting Kconfigs instead. Just look at the SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS mess we still
> have to clean up. But as we don't expect that many providers for now, I
> don't care.

With the simple version, Kconfig learner as me can easily understand what
they are doing. If it took you a couple of iterations to make them as
you had mentioned earlier, and it took me several iterations to
understand them, I believe there must be room to improve the presented
ones in this patchset. These are only my humble opinion, and I am not
aware of virtio-mem at all, I'll leave this to you and other virtio-mem
dev to decide what should be taken. Thanks for your patience and
provided information, I learned a lot from this discussion.

===================
fs/proc/Kconfig:
config PROVIDE_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
        def_bool n

config NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
        def_bool n

config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
        def_bool y
        depends on PROC_VMCORE
        depends on NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
        depends on PROVIDE_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM

drivers/virtio/Kconfig:
config VIRTIO_MEM
        select PROVIDE_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM if PROC_VMCORE
                                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

arch/s390/Kconfig:
config S390
        select NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM if PROC_VMCORE
                                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
========================

One last thing I haven't got well, If PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM has had
dependency on PROC_VMCORE, can we take off the ' if PROC_VMCORE' when
select PROVIDE_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM and NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM?

Thanks
Baoquan


  reply	other threads:[~2024-11-21  4:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-10-25 15:11 [PATCH v1 00/11] fs/proc/vmcore: kdump support for virtio-mem on s390 David Hildenbrand
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 01/11] fs/proc/vmcore: convert vmcore_cb_lock into vmcore_mutex David Hildenbrand
2024-11-15  9:30   ` Baoquan He
2024-11-15 10:03     ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-20  8:16       ` Baoquan He
2024-11-20  8:56         ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 02/11] fs/proc/vmcore: replace vmcoredd_mutex by vmcore_mutex David Hildenbrand
2024-11-15  9:32   ` Baoquan He
2024-11-15 10:04     ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-20  8:14       ` Baoquan He
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 03/11] fs/proc/vmcore: disallow vmcore modifications after the vmcore was opened David Hildenbrand
2024-11-22  9:16   ` Baoquan He
2024-11-22  9:30     ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-25 14:41       ` Baoquan He
2024-11-29 10:38         ` David Hildenbrand
2024-12-03 10:42           ` Baoquan He
2024-12-03 10:51             ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 04/11] fs/proc/vmcore: move vmcore definitions from kcore.h to crash_dump.h David Hildenbrand
2024-11-15  9:44   ` Baoquan He
2024-11-15  9:59     ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-20  9:42       ` Baoquan He
2024-11-20 10:28         ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-21  4:35           ` Baoquan He
2024-11-21 15:37             ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 05/11] fs/proc/vmcore: factor out allocating a vmcore memory node David Hildenbrand
2024-11-20  9:45   ` Baoquan He
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 06/11] fs/proc/vmcore: factor out freeing a list of vmcore ranges David Hildenbrand
2024-11-20  9:46   ` Baoquan He
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 07/11] fs/proc/vmcore: introduce PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM to detect device RAM ranges in 2nd kernel David Hildenbrand
2024-11-20 10:13   ` Baoquan He
2024-11-20 10:48     ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-20 14:05       ` Baoquan He
2024-11-20 14:39         ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-21  4:30           ` Baoquan He [this message]
2024-11-21 19:47             ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-22  7:51               ` Baoquan He
2024-11-22  7:31   ` Baoquan He
2024-11-22  9:47     ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 08/11] virtio-mem: mark device ready before registering callbacks in kdump mode David Hildenbrand
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 09/11] virtio-mem: remember usable region size David Hildenbrand
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 10/11] virtio-mem: support CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM David Hildenbrand
2024-10-25 15:11 ` [PATCH v1 11/11] s390/kdump: virtio-mem kdump support (CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM) David Hildenbrand
2024-11-04  6:21 ` [PATCH v1 00/11] fs/proc/vmcore: kdump support for virtio-mem on s390 Baoquan He
2024-11-15  8:46 ` Baoquan He
2024-11-15  8:55   ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-15  9:48     ` Baoquan He

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=Zz63aGL7NcrONk+p@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
    --to=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=eperezma@redhat.com \
    --cc=farman@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=thuth@redhat.com \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.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).