From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F56C433DF for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FEAA204EA for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728862AbgG3IWw (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2020 04:22:52 -0400 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32]:60334 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726194AbgG3IWu (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2020 04:22:50 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS409-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 398DC6D23F6138F8A5E6; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:22:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.174.176.220) by DGGEMS409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:22:38 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/5] arm64: kdump: fix kdump broken with ZONE_DMA reintroduced To: Catalin Marinas References: <20200703035816.31289-1-chenzhou10@huawei.com> <20200703035816.31289-5-chenzhou10@huawei.com> <20200727173014.GL13938@gaia> <20200729115851.GC5524@gaia> <217004f5-dd8e-d04c-038b-c88b132d5495@huawei.com> <20200729152028.GE5524@gaia> CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , From: chenzhou Message-ID: <10e223dc-9314-920f-c208-65a31819d1b7@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:22:37 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200729152028.GE5524@gaia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.176.220] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Catalin, On 2020/7/29 23:20, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:14:32PM +0800, chenzhou wrote: >> On 2020/7/29 19:58, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:52:39AM +0800, chenzhou wrote: >>>> How about like this: >>>> 1. For ZONE_DMA issue, use Bhupesh's solution, keep the crashkernel= >>>> behaviour to ZONE_DMA allocations. >>>> 2. For this patch series, make the reserve_crashkernel_low() to >>>> ZONE_DMA allocations. >>> So you mean rebasing your series on top of Bhupesh's? I guess you can >>> combine the two, I really don't care which way as long as we fix both >>> issues and agree on the crashkernel= semantics. I think with some tweaks >>> we can go with your series alone. >>> >>> IIUC from the x86 code (especially the part you #ifdef'ed out for >>> arm64), if ",low" is not passed (so just standard crashkernel=X), it >>> still allocates sufficient low memory for the swiotlb in ZONE_DMA. The >>> rest can go in a high region. Why can't we do something similar on >>> arm64? Of course, you can keep the ",low" argument for explicit >>> allocation but I don't want to mandate it. >> It is a good idea to combine the two. >> >> For parameter crashkernel=X, we do like this: >> 1. allocate some low memory in ZONE_DMA(or ZONE_DMA32 if CONFIG_ZONE_DMA=n) >> 2. allocate X size memory in a high region >> >> ",low" argument can be used to specify the low memory. >> >> Do i understand correctly? > Yes, although we could follow the x86 approach: > > 1. Try low (ZONE_DMA for arm64) allocation, fallback to high allocation > if it fails. > > 2. If crash_base is outside ZONE_DMA, call reserve_crashkernel_low() > which either honours the ,low option or allocates some small amount > in ZONE_DMA. > > If at some point we have platforms failing step 2, we'll look at > changing ZONE_DMA to the full 4GB on non-RPi4 platforms. > > It looks to me like x86 ignores the ,low option if the first step > managed to get some low memory. Shall we do the same on arm64? Yes, we could do like this. > >>> So with an implicit ZONE_DMA allocation similar to the x86 one, we >>> probably don't need Bhupesh's series at all. In addition, we can limit >>> crashkernel= to the first 4G with a fall-back to high like x86 (not sure >>> if memblock_find_in_range() is guaranteed to search in ascending order). >>> I don't think we need an explicit ",high" annotation. >>> >>> So with the above, just a crashkernel=1G gives you at least 256MB in >>> ZONE_DMA followed by the rest anywhere, with a preference for >>> ZONE_DMA32. This way we can also keep the reserve_crashkernel_low() >>> mostly intact from x86 (less #ifdef's). >> Yes. We can let crashkernel=X try to reserve low memory and fall back to use high memory >> if failing to find a low range. > The only question is whether we need to preserve some more ZONE_DMA on > the current system. If for example we pass a crashkernel=512M and some > cma=, we may end up with very little free memory in ZONE_DMA. That's > mostly an issue for RPi4 since other platforms would work with > ZONE_DMA32. We could add a threshold and go for high allocation directly > if the required size is too large. Ok. I will think about the threshold in the next version and make the value be 1/2 or 1/3 of the ZONE_DMA. > >> About the function reserve_crashkernel_low(), if we put it in arch/arm64, there is some common >> code with x86_64. Some suggestions about this? > If we can use this function almost intact, just move it in a common > place. But if it gets sprinkled with #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64, I'd rather > duplicate it. I'd still prefer to move it to a common place if possible. > > You can go a step further and also move the x86 reserve_crashkernel() to > common code. I don't think there a significant difference between arm64 > and x86 here. You'd have to define arch-specific specific > CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX etc. I will take these into account and send the next version recently. > > Also patches moving code should not have any functional change. The > CRASH_ALIGN change from 16M to 2M on x86 should be a separate patch as > it needs to be acked by the x86 maintainers (IIRC, Ingo only acked the > function move if there was no functional change; CRASH_ALIGN is used for > the start address, not just alignment, on x86). > Thanks, Chen Zhou From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD2BC433DF for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:24:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09A04204EA for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:24:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="s7P7wJdG" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 09A04204EA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=BzjumayvsWKGSs1GV/L8geOk/D57r6bqg7er2ISPhOw=; b=s7P7wJdGnDYWIPZXF0sUhXC2G rETVEKDF+fpUiEBgDh2QV/RhyiimX1JqvX+BtO8q3nWukqC5QAfaRIpzAh5vLTkDkSRWtAee0hvfd bH4efBFEUS6dR0gR1/rTtr0y+YtNWoUEds81AXKsdemS5fpWhDua2lqiWZvU58JzcPx6u+HiN5NOZ EbioQueSHFZT9/2nm2hrFsdQUCpWGelBSW8s7jLeepCj0Dq2LoCHoTx30LNmMta7/Ke7cGlVKHuzB cHzqrUJPKHKUJlYmyhYlJb/HfdqU9ieKAxWzwJ6fPk4sYIzorypUrCPq8JVlawYaEQqIC1Ouhvbvg hs1So9gfA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1k13qC-0005pj-8z; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:23:04 +0000 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32] helo=huawei.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1k13q6-0005lf-N5; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:22:59 +0000 Received: from DGGEMS409-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 398DC6D23F6138F8A5E6; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:22:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.174.176.220) by DGGEMS409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:22:38 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/5] arm64: kdump: fix kdump broken with ZONE_DMA reintroduced To: Catalin Marinas References: <20200703035816.31289-1-chenzhou10@huawei.com> <20200703035816.31289-5-chenzhou10@huawei.com> <20200727173014.GL13938@gaia> <20200729115851.GC5524@gaia> <217004f5-dd8e-d04c-038b-c88b132d5495@huawei.com> <20200729152028.GE5524@gaia> From: chenzhou Message-ID: <10e223dc-9314-920f-c208-65a31819d1b7@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:22:37 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200729152028.GE5524@gaia> X-Originating-IP: [10.174.176.220] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200730_042259_027286_9D7BCD09 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 32.33 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: horms@verge.net.au, John.P.donnelly@oracle.com, xiexiuqi@huawei.com, arnd@arndb.de, bhe@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, dyoung@redhat.com, bhsharma@redhat.com, guohanjun@huawei.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, james.morse@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, huawei.libin@huawei.com, prabhakar.pkin@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, will@kernel.org, nsaenzjulienne@suse.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Catalin, On 2020/7/29 23:20, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:14:32PM +0800, chenzhou wrote: >> On 2020/7/29 19:58, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:52:39AM +0800, chenzhou wrote: >>>> How about like this: >>>> 1. For ZONE_DMA issue, use Bhupesh's solution, keep the crashkernel= >>>> behaviour to ZONE_DMA allocations. >>>> 2. For this patch series, make the reserve_crashkernel_low() to >>>> ZONE_DMA allocations. >>> So you mean rebasing your series on top of Bhupesh's? I guess you can >>> combine the two, I really don't care which way as long as we fix both >>> issues and agree on the crashkernel= semantics. I think with some tweaks >>> we can go with your series alone. >>> >>> IIUC from the x86 code (especially the part you #ifdef'ed out for >>> arm64), if ",low" is not passed (so just standard crashkernel=X), it >>> still allocates sufficient low memory for the swiotlb in ZONE_DMA. The >>> rest can go in a high region. Why can't we do something similar on >>> arm64? Of course, you can keep the ",low" argument for explicit >>> allocation but I don't want to mandate it. >> It is a good idea to combine the two. >> >> For parameter crashkernel=X, we do like this: >> 1. allocate some low memory in ZONE_DMA(or ZONE_DMA32 if CONFIG_ZONE_DMA=n) >> 2. allocate X size memory in a high region >> >> ",low" argument can be used to specify the low memory. >> >> Do i understand correctly? > Yes, although we could follow the x86 approach: > > 1. Try low (ZONE_DMA for arm64) allocation, fallback to high allocation > if it fails. > > 2. If crash_base is outside ZONE_DMA, call reserve_crashkernel_low() > which either honours the ,low option or allocates some small amount > in ZONE_DMA. > > If at some point we have platforms failing step 2, we'll look at > changing ZONE_DMA to the full 4GB on non-RPi4 platforms. > > It looks to me like x86 ignores the ,low option if the first step > managed to get some low memory. Shall we do the same on arm64? Yes, we could do like this. > >>> So with an implicit ZONE_DMA allocation similar to the x86 one, we >>> probably don't need Bhupesh's series at all. In addition, we can limit >>> crashkernel= to the first 4G with a fall-back to high like x86 (not sure >>> if memblock_find_in_range() is guaranteed to search in ascending order). >>> I don't think we need an explicit ",high" annotation. >>> >>> So with the above, just a crashkernel=1G gives you at least 256MB in >>> ZONE_DMA followed by the rest anywhere, with a preference for >>> ZONE_DMA32. This way we can also keep the reserve_crashkernel_low() >>> mostly intact from x86 (less #ifdef's). >> Yes. We can let crashkernel=X try to reserve low memory and fall back to use high memory >> if failing to find a low range. > The only question is whether we need to preserve some more ZONE_DMA on > the current system. If for example we pass a crashkernel=512M and some > cma=, we may end up with very little free memory in ZONE_DMA. That's > mostly an issue for RPi4 since other platforms would work with > ZONE_DMA32. We could add a threshold and go for high allocation directly > if the required size is too large. Ok. I will think about the threshold in the next version and make the value be 1/2 or 1/3 of the ZONE_DMA. > >> About the function reserve_crashkernel_low(), if we put it in arch/arm64, there is some common >> code with x86_64. Some suggestions about this? > If we can use this function almost intact, just move it in a common > place. But if it gets sprinkled with #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64, I'd rather > duplicate it. I'd still prefer to move it to a common place if possible. > > You can go a step further and also move the x86 reserve_crashkernel() to > common code. I don't think there a significant difference between arm64 > and x86 here. You'd have to define arch-specific specific > CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX etc. I will take these into account and send the next version recently. > > Also patches moving code should not have any functional change. The > CRASH_ALIGN change from 16M to 2M on x86 should be a separate patch as > it needs to be acked by the x86 maintainers (IIRC, Ingo only acked the > function move if there was no functional change; CRASH_ALIGN is used for > the start address, not just alignment, on x86). > Thanks, Chen Zhou _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/5] arm64: kdump: fix kdump broken with ZONE_DMA reintroduced References: <20200703035816.31289-1-chenzhou10@huawei.com> <20200703035816.31289-5-chenzhou10@huawei.com> <20200727173014.GL13938@gaia> <20200729115851.GC5524@gaia> <217004f5-dd8e-d04c-038b-c88b132d5495@huawei.com> <20200729152028.GE5524@gaia> From: chenzhou Message-ID: <10e223dc-9314-920f-c208-65a31819d1b7@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:22:37 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200729152028.GE5524@gaia> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Catalin Marinas Cc: horms@verge.net.au, John.P.donnelly@oracle.com, xiexiuqi@huawei.com, arnd@arndb.de, bhe@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, dyoung@redhat.com, bhsharma@redhat.com, guohanjun@huawei.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, james.morse@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, huawei.libin@huawei.com, prabhakar.pkin@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, will@kernel.org, nsaenzjulienne@suse.de Hi Catalin, On 2020/7/29 23:20, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:14:32PM +0800, chenzhou wrote: >> On 2020/7/29 19:58, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:52:39AM +0800, chenzhou wrote: >>>> How about like this: >>>> 1. For ZONE_DMA issue, use Bhupesh's solution, keep the crashkernel= >>>> behaviour to ZONE_DMA allocations. >>>> 2. For this patch series, make the reserve_crashkernel_low() to >>>> ZONE_DMA allocations. >>> So you mean rebasing your series on top of Bhupesh's? I guess you can >>> combine the two, I really don't care which way as long as we fix both >>> issues and agree on the crashkernel= semantics. I think with some tweaks >>> we can go with your series alone. >>> >>> IIUC from the x86 code (especially the part you #ifdef'ed out for >>> arm64), if ",low" is not passed (so just standard crashkernel=X), it >>> still allocates sufficient low memory for the swiotlb in ZONE_DMA. The >>> rest can go in a high region. Why can't we do something similar on >>> arm64? Of course, you can keep the ",low" argument for explicit >>> allocation but I don't want to mandate it. >> It is a good idea to combine the two. >> >> For parameter crashkernel=X, we do like this: >> 1. allocate some low memory in ZONE_DMA(or ZONE_DMA32 if CONFIG_ZONE_DMA=n) >> 2. allocate X size memory in a high region >> >> ",low" argument can be used to specify the low memory. >> >> Do i understand correctly? > Yes, although we could follow the x86 approach: > > 1. Try low (ZONE_DMA for arm64) allocation, fallback to high allocation > if it fails. > > 2. If crash_base is outside ZONE_DMA, call reserve_crashkernel_low() > which either honours the ,low option or allocates some small amount > in ZONE_DMA. > > If at some point we have platforms failing step 2, we'll look at > changing ZONE_DMA to the full 4GB on non-RPi4 platforms. > > It looks to me like x86 ignores the ,low option if the first step > managed to get some low memory. Shall we do the same on arm64? Yes, we could do like this. > >>> So with an implicit ZONE_DMA allocation similar to the x86 one, we >>> probably don't need Bhupesh's series at all. In addition, we can limit >>> crashkernel= to the first 4G with a fall-back to high like x86 (not sure >>> if memblock_find_in_range() is guaranteed to search in ascending order). >>> I don't think we need an explicit ",high" annotation. >>> >>> So with the above, just a crashkernel=1G gives you at least 256MB in >>> ZONE_DMA followed by the rest anywhere, with a preference for >>> ZONE_DMA32. This way we can also keep the reserve_crashkernel_low() >>> mostly intact from x86 (less #ifdef's). >> Yes. We can let crashkernel=X try to reserve low memory and fall back to use high memory >> if failing to find a low range. > The only question is whether we need to preserve some more ZONE_DMA on > the current system. If for example we pass a crashkernel=512M and some > cma=, we may end up with very little free memory in ZONE_DMA. That's > mostly an issue for RPi4 since other platforms would work with > ZONE_DMA32. We could add a threshold and go for high allocation directly > if the required size is too large. Ok. I will think about the threshold in the next version and make the value be 1/2 or 1/3 of the ZONE_DMA. > >> About the function reserve_crashkernel_low(), if we put it in arch/arm64, there is some common >> code with x86_64. Some suggestions about this? > If we can use this function almost intact, just move it in a common > place. But if it gets sprinkled with #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64, I'd rather > duplicate it. I'd still prefer to move it to a common place if possible. > > You can go a step further and also move the x86 reserve_crashkernel() to > common code. I don't think there a significant difference between arm64 > and x86 here. You'd have to define arch-specific specific > CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX etc. I will take these into account and send the next version recently. > > Also patches moving code should not have any functional change. The > CRASH_ALIGN change from 16M to 2M on x86 should be a separate patch as > it needs to be acked by the x86 maintainers (IIRC, Ingo only acked the > function move if there was no functional change; CRASH_ALIGN is used for > the start address, not just alignment, on x86). > Thanks, Chen Zhou _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec