From: chenzhou <chenzhou10@huawei.com>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
<tglx@linutronix.de>, <rppt@kernel.org>, <dyoung@redhat.com>,
<will@kernel.org>, <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>, <corbet@lwn.net>,
<John.P.donnelly@oracle.com>, <prabhakar.pkin@gmail.com>,
<horms@verge.net.au>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>, <arnd@arndb.de>,
<james.morse@arm.com>, <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>,
<guohanjun@huawei.com>, <huawei.libin@huawei.com>,
<wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kexec@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 01/11] x86: kdump: replace the hard-coded alignment with macro CRASH_ALIGN
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 10:34:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5cde3992-96cf-5d7d-a252-30d1d2847b59@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210302074327.GC13714@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
On 2021/3/2 15:43, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 02/26/21 at 09:38am, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> chenzhou <chenzhou10@huawei.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2021/2/25 15:25, Baoquan He wrote:
>>>> On 02/24/21 at 02:19pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 03:10:15PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
>>>>>> Move CRASH_ALIGN to header asm/kexec.h for later use. Besides, the
>>>>>> alignment of crash kernel regions in x86 is 16M(CRASH_ALIGN), but
>>>>>> function reserve_crashkernel() also used 1M alignment. So just
>>>>>> replace hard-coded alignment 1M with macro CRASH_ALIGN.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> @@ -510,7 +507,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>> unsigned long long start;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - start = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, SZ_1M, crash_base,
>>>>>> + start = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN, crash_base,
>>>>>> crash_base + crash_size);
>>>>>> if (start != crash_base) {
>>>>>> pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use.\n");
>>>>> There is a small functional change here for x86. Prior to this patch,
>>>>> crash_base passed by the user on the command line is allowed to be 1MB
>>>>> aligned. With this patch, such reservation will fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the current behaviour a bug in the current x86 code or it does allow
>>>>> 1MB-aligned reservations?
>>>> Hmm, you are right. Here we should keep 1MB alignment as is because
>>>> users specify the address and size, their intention should be respected.
>>>> The 1MB alignment for fixed memory region reservation was introduced in
>>>> below commit, but it doesn't tell what is Eric's request at that time, I
>>>> guess it meant respecting users' specifying.
>>
>>> I think we could make the alignment unified. Why is the alignment system reserved and
>>> user specified different? Besides, there is no document about the 1MB alignment.
>>> How about adding the alignment size(16MB) in doc if user specified
>>> start address as arm64 does.
>> Looking at what the code is doing. Attempting to reserve a crash region
>> at the location the user specified. Adding unnecessary alignment
>> constraints is totally broken.
>>
>> I am not even certain enforcing a 1MB alignment makes sense. I suspect
>> it was added so that we don't accidentally reserve low memory on x86.
>> Frankly I am not even certain that makes sense.
>>
>> Now in practice there might be an argument for 2MB alignment that goes
>> with huge page sizes on x86. But until someone finds that there are
>> actual problems with 1MB alignment I would not touch it.
>>
>> The proper response to something that isn't documented and confusing is
>> not to arbitrarily change it and risk breaking users. Especially in
>> this case where it is clear that adding additional alignment is total
>> nonsense. The proper response to something that isn't clear and
>> documented is to dig in and document it, or to leave it alone and let it
> Sounds reasonable. Then adding document or code comment around looks
> like a good way to go further so that people can easily get why its
> alignment is different than other reservation.
Hi Baoquan & Eric,
Sorry for late reply, i missed it earlier.
Thanks for your explanation, i will just leave the 1MB alignment here as is.
I will introduce CRASH_ALIGN_SPECIFIED to help make function reserve_crashkernel generic.
CRASH_ALIGN_SPECIFIED is used for user specified start address which is distinct from
default CRASH_ALIGN.
Thanks,
Chen Zhou
>
>> be the next persons problem.
>>
>> In this case there is no reason for changing this bit of code.
>> All CRASH_ALIGN is about is a default alignment when none is specified.
>> It is not a functional requirement but just something so that things
>> come out nicely.
>>
>>
>> Eric
>>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-29 2:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-30 7:10 [PATCH v14 00/11] support reserving crashkernel above 4G on arm64 kdump Chen Zhou
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 01/11] x86: kdump: replace the hard-coded alignment with macro CRASH_ALIGN Chen Zhou
2021-02-18 3:29 ` Baoquan He
2021-02-24 14:19 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-02-25 7:25 ` Baoquan He
2021-02-26 6:45 ` chenzhou
2021-02-26 15:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-02 7:43 ` Baoquan He
2021-03-29 2:34 ` chenzhou [this message]
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 02/11] x86: kdump: make the lower bound of crash kernel reservation consistent Chen Zhou
2021-02-18 3:33 ` Baoquan He
2021-02-24 14:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-02-25 7:08 ` Baoquan He
2021-02-25 14:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-02-25 15:44 ` Baoquan He
2021-02-26 7:32 ` chenzhou
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 03/11] x86: kdump: use macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX in functions reserve_crashkernel() Chen Zhou
2021-02-18 8:23 ` Baoquan He
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 04/11] x86: kdump: move xen_pv_domain() check and insert_resource() to setup_arch() Chen Zhou
2021-02-18 4:14 ` Baoquan He
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 05/11] x86: kdump: move reserve_crashkernel[_low]() into crash_core.c Chen Zhou
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 06/11] x86/elf: Move vmcore_elf_check_arch_cross to arch/x86/include/asm/elf.h Chen Zhou
2021-02-18 6:31 ` Baoquan He
2021-02-18 7:05 ` chenzhou
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 07/11] arm64: kdump: introduce some macroes for crash kernel reservation Chen Zhou
2021-02-04 16:20 ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2021-02-04 16:27 ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 08/11] arm64: kdump: reimplement crashkernel=X Chen Zhou
2021-02-24 16:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-02-26 10:31 ` chenzhou
2021-02-26 10:43 ` chenzhou
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 09/11] x86, arm64: Add ARCH_WANT_RESERVE_CRASH_KERNEL config Chen Zhou
2021-02-18 7:31 ` Baoquan He
2021-02-18 7:40 ` Baoquan He
2021-02-18 8:35 ` Baoquan He
2021-02-20 3:22 ` chenzhou
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 10/11] arm64: kdump: add memory for devices by DT property linux,usable-memory-range Chen Zhou
2021-01-30 7:10 ` [PATCH v14 11/11] kdump: update Documentation about crashkernel Chen Zhou
2021-01-30 17:53 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-02-04 1:53 ` chenzhou
2021-02-18 8:40 ` Baoquan He
2021-02-20 3:25 ` chenzhou
2021-02-08 6:46 ` [PATCH v14 00/11] support reserving crashkernel above 4G on arm64 kdump chenzhou
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=5cde3992-96cf-5d7d-a252-30d1d2847b59@huawei.com \
--to=chenzhou10@huawei.com \
--cc=John.P.donnelly@oracle.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=huawei.libin@huawei.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nsaenzjulienne@suse.de \
--cc=prabhakar.pkin@gmail.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=xiexiuqi@huawei.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).