[PATCH 0/2] kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system RAM if required

[PATCH 0/2] kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system RAM if required

[Baoquan He]

Justification:
==============
Kexec_load interface has been doing top down searching and loading
kernel/initrd/purgtory etc to prepare for kexec reboot. In that way,
the benefits are that it avoids to consume and fragment limited low
memory which satisfy DMA buffer allocation and big chunk of continuous
memory during system init; and avoids to stir with BIOS/FW reserved
or occupied areas, or corner case handling/work around/quirk occupied
areas when doing system init. By the way, the top-down searching and
loading of kexec-ed kernel is done in user space utility code.

For kexec_file loading, even if kexec_buf.top_down is 'true', it's simply
ignored. It calls walk_system_ram_res() directly to go through all
resources of System RAM bottom up, to find an available memory region,
then call locate_mem_hole_callback() to allocate memory in that found
memory region from top to down. This is not expected and inconsistent
with kexec_load.

Implementation
===============
In patch 1, introduce a new function walk_system_ram_res_rev() which is
a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), it walks through a list of all the
resources of System RAM in reversed order, i.e., from higher to lower.

In patch 2, check if kexec_buf.top_down is 'true' in kexec_walk_resources(),
if yes, call walk_system_ram_res_rev() to find memory region of system RAM
from top to down to load kernel/initrd etc.

Background information:
=======================
And I ever tried this in the past in a different way, please see below
link. In the post, I tried to adjust struct sibling linking code,
replace the the singly linked list with list_head so that
walk_system_ram_res_rev() can be implemented in a much easier way.
Finally I failed.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20180718024944.577-4-bhe@redhat.com/

This time, I picked up the patch from AKASHI Takahiro's old post and
made some change to take as the current patch 1:
https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-September/531456.html

Testing:
========
Only tried on x86_64

Baoquan He (2):
  resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()
  kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system RAM if required

 include/linux/ioport.h |  3 +++
 kernel/kexec_file.c    |  2 ++
 kernel/resource.c      | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 66 insertions(+)

-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Baoquan He]

This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res() introduced in
commit 8c86e70acead ("resource: provide new functions to walk through
resources"), walks through a list of all the resources of System RAM
in reversed order, i.e., from higher to lower.

It will be used in kexec_file code to load kernel, initrd etc when
preparing kexec reboot.

Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
---
 include/linux/ioport.h |  3 +++
 kernel/resource.c      | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/ioport.h b/include/linux/ioport.h
index 14f5cfabbbc8..db7fe25f3370 100644
--- a/include/linux/ioport.h
+++ b/include/linux/ioport.h
@@ -331,6 +331,9 @@ extern int
 walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
 		    int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
 extern int
+walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
+			int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
+extern int
 walk_iomem_res_desc(unsigned long desc, unsigned long flags, u64 start, u64 end,
 		    void *arg, int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
 
diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
index 866ef3663a0b..12bce44a2c08 100644
--- a/kernel/resource.c
+++ b/kernel/resource.c
@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
 #include <linux/mount.h>
 #include <linux/resource_ext.h>
 #include <uapi/linux/magic.h>
+#include <linux/string.h>
+#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
 #include <asm/io.h>
 
 
@@ -429,6 +431,65 @@ int walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
 				     func);
 }
 
+/*
+ * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
+ * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
+ * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
+ * higher to lower.
+ */
+int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
+				int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
+{
+	struct resource res, *rams;
+	int rams_size = 16, i;
+	unsigned long flags;
+	int ret = -1;
+
+	/* create a list */
+	rams = kvcalloc(rams_size, sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!rams)
+		return ret;
+
+	flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
+	i = 0;
+	while ((start < end) &&
+		(!find_next_iomem_res(start, end, flags, IORES_DESC_NONE, &res))) {
+		if (i >= rams_size) {
+			/* re-alloc */
+			struct resource *rams_new;
+			int rams_new_size;
+
+			rams_new_size = rams_size + 16;
+			rams_new = kvcalloc(rams_new_size, sizeof(struct resource),
+					    GFP_KERNEL);
+			if (!rams_new)
+				goto out;
+
+			memcpy(rams_new, rams,
+					sizeof(struct resource) * rams_size);
+			kvfree(rams);
+			rams = rams_new;
+			rams_size = rams_new_size;
+		}
+
+		rams[i].start = res.start;
+		rams[i++].end = res.end;
+
+		start = res.end + 1;
+	}
+
+	/* go reverse */
+	for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
+		ret = (*func)(&rams[i], arg);
+		if (ret)
+			break;
+	}
+
+out:
+	kvfree(rams);
+	return ret;
+}
+
 /*
  * This function calls the @func callback against all memory ranges, which
  * are ranges marked as IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOUCE_BUSY.
-- 
2.41.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 17:16:57 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:

> This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res() introduced in
> commit 8c86e70acead ("resource: provide new functions to walk through
> resources"), walks through a list of all the resources of System RAM
> in reversed order, i.e., from higher to lower.
> 
> It will be used in kexec_file code to load kernel, initrd etc when
> preparing kexec reboot.
>
> ...
>
> +/*
> + * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
> + * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
> + * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
> + * higher to lower.
> + */
> +int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
> +				int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> +{
> +	struct resource res, *rams;
> +	int rams_size = 16, i;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	int ret = -1;
> +
> +	/* create a list */
> +	rams = kvcalloc(rams_size, sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!rams)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
> +	i = 0;
> +	while ((start < end) &&
> +		(!find_next_iomem_res(start, end, flags, IORES_DESC_NONE, &res))) {
> +		if (i >= rams_size) {
> +			/* re-alloc */
> +			struct resource *rams_new;
> +			int rams_new_size;
> +
> +			rams_new_size = rams_size + 16;
> +			rams_new = kvcalloc(rams_new_size, sizeof(struct resource),
> +					    GFP_KERNEL);

kvrealloc()?

> +			if (!rams_new)
> +				goto out;
> +
> +			memcpy(rams_new, rams,
> +					sizeof(struct resource) * rams_size);
> +			kvfree(rams);
> +			rams = rams_new;
> +			rams_size = rams_new_size;
> +		}
> +
> +		rams[i].start = res.start;
> +		rams[i++].end = res.end;
> +
> +		start = res.end + 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* go reverse */
> +	for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
> +		ret = (*func)(&rams[i], arg);
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +out:
> +	kvfree(rams);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * This function calls the @func callback against all memory ranges, which
>   * are ranges marked as IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOUCE_BUSY.
> -- 
> 2.41.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Baoquan He]

On 11/14/23 at 03:17pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 17:16:57 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res() introduced in
> > commit 8c86e70acead ("resource: provide new functions to walk through
> > resources"), walks through a list of all the resources of System RAM
> > in reversed order, i.e., from higher to lower.
> > 
> > It will be used in kexec_file code to load kernel, initrd etc when
> > preparing kexec reboot.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +/*
> > + * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
> > + * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
> > + * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
> > + * higher to lower.
> > + */
> > +int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
> > +				int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> > +{
> > +	struct resource res, *rams;
> > +	int rams_size = 16, i;
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	int ret = -1;
> > +
> > +	/* create a list */
> > +	rams = kvcalloc(rams_size, sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!rams)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
> > +	i = 0;
> > +	while ((start < end) &&
> > +		(!find_next_iomem_res(start, end, flags, IORES_DESC_NONE, &res))) {
> > +		if (i >= rams_size) {
> > +			/* re-alloc */
> > +			struct resource *rams_new;
> > +			int rams_new_size;
> > +
> > +			rams_new_size = rams_size + 16;
> > +			rams_new = kvcalloc(rams_new_size, sizeof(struct resource),
> > +					    GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> kvrealloc()?

Exactly. Will udpate. Thanks for the great suggestion.

> 
> > +			if (!rams_new)
> > +				goto out;
> > +
> > +			memcpy(rams_new, rams,
> > +					sizeof(struct resource) * rams_size);
> > +			kvfree(rams);
> > +			rams = rams_new;
> > +			rams_size = rams_new_size;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		rams[i].start = res.start;
> > +		rams[i++].end = res.end;
> > +
> > +		start = res.end + 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* go reverse */
> > +	for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
> > +		ret = (*func)(&rams[i], arg);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			break;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +out:
> > +	kvfree(rams);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * This function calls the @func callback against all memory ranges, which
> >   * are ranges marked as IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOUCE_BUSY.
> > -- 
> > 2.41.0
> 

[PATCH v2 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Baoquan He]

This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res() introduced in
commit 8c86e70acead ("resource: provide new functions to walk through
resources"), walks through a list of all the resources of System RAM
in reversed order, i.e., from higher to lower.

It will be used in kexec_file code to load kernel, initrd etc when
preparing kexec reboot.

Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
---
v1->v2:
- Use kvrealloc() to reallocate memory instead of kvcalloc(), this
  simplifies code. Suggested by Andrew.

 include/linux/ioport.h |  3 +++
 kernel/resource.c      | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/ioport.h b/include/linux/ioport.h
index 14f5cfabbbc8..db7fe25f3370 100644
--- a/include/linux/ioport.h
+++ b/include/linux/ioport.h
@@ -331,6 +331,9 @@ extern int
 walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
 		    int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
 extern int
+walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
+			int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
+extern int
 walk_iomem_res_desc(unsigned long desc, unsigned long flags, u64 start, u64 end,
 		    void *arg, int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
 
diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
index 866ef3663a0b..e8a244300e5b 100644
--- a/kernel/resource.c
+++ b/kernel/resource.c
@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
 #include <linux/mount.h>
 #include <linux/resource_ext.h>
 #include <uapi/linux/magic.h>
+#include <linux/string.h>
+#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
 #include <asm/io.h>
 
 
@@ -429,6 +431,61 @@ int walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
 				     func);
 }
 
+/*
+ * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
+ * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
+ * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
+ * higher to lower.
+ */
+int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
+				int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
+{
+	struct resource res, *rams;
+	int rams_size = 16, i;
+	unsigned long flags;
+	int ret = -1;
+
+	/* create a list */
+	rams = kvcalloc(rams_size, sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!rams)
+		return ret;
+
+	flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
+	i = 0;
+	while ((start < end) &&
+		(!find_next_iomem_res(start, end, flags, IORES_DESC_NONE, &res))) {
+		if (i >= rams_size) {
+			/* re-alloc */
+			struct resource *rams_new;
+
+			rams_new = kvrealloc(rams, rams_size * sizeof(struct resource),
+					     (rams_size + 16) * sizeof(struct resource),
+					     GFP_KERNEL);
+			if (!rams_new)
+				goto out;
+
+			rams = rams_new;
+			rams_size += 16;
+		}
+
+		rams[i].start = res.start;
+		rams[i++].end = res.end;
+
+		start = res.end + 1;
+	}
+
+	/* go reverse */
+	for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
+		ret = (*func)(&rams[i], arg);
+		if (ret)
+			break;
+	}
+
+out:
+	kvfree(rams);
+	return ret;
+}
+
 /*
  * This function calls the @func callback against all memory ranges, which
  * are ranges marked as IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOUCE_BUSY.
-- 
2.41.0

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Baoquan He]

Hi Andrew,

On 11/15/23 at 09:00pm, Baoquan He wrote:
> This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res() introduced in
> commit 8c86e70acead ("resource: provide new functions to walk through
> resources"), walks through a list of all the resources of System RAM
> in reversed order, i.e., from higher to lower.
> 
> It will be used in kexec_file code to load kernel, initrd etc when
> preparing kexec reboot.
> 
> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> ---
> v1->v2:
> - Use kvrealloc() to reallocate memory instead of kvcalloc(), this
>   simplifies code. Suggested by Andrew.
> 
>  include/linux/ioport.h |  3 +++
>  kernel/resource.c      | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)

Gentle ping.

Could you pick this patchset into next tree so that it can be run on
testing robots?

Thanks
Baoquan

> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/ioport.h b/include/linux/ioport.h
> index 14f5cfabbbc8..db7fe25f3370 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ioport.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ioport.h
> @@ -331,6 +331,9 @@ extern int
>  walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
>  		    int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
>  extern int
> +walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
> +			int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
> +extern int
>  walk_iomem_res_desc(unsigned long desc, unsigned long flags, u64 start, u64 end,
>  		    void *arg, int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
> index 866ef3663a0b..e8a244300e5b 100644
> --- a/kernel/resource.c
> +++ b/kernel/resource.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
>  #include <linux/mount.h>
>  #include <linux/resource_ext.h>
>  #include <uapi/linux/magic.h>
> +#include <linux/string.h>
> +#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>  #include <asm/io.h>
>  
>  
> @@ -429,6 +431,61 @@ int walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
>  				     func);
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
> + * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
> + * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
> + * higher to lower.
> + */
> +int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
> +				int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> +{
> +	struct resource res, *rams;
> +	int rams_size = 16, i;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	int ret = -1;
> +
> +	/* create a list */
> +	rams = kvcalloc(rams_size, sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!rams)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
> +	i = 0;
> +	while ((start < end) &&
> +		(!find_next_iomem_res(start, end, flags, IORES_DESC_NONE, &res))) {
> +		if (i >= rams_size) {
> +			/* re-alloc */
> +			struct resource *rams_new;
> +
> +			rams_new = kvrealloc(rams, rams_size * sizeof(struct resource),
> +					     (rams_size + 16) * sizeof(struct resource),
> +					     GFP_KERNEL);
> +			if (!rams_new)
> +				goto out;
> +
> +			rams = rams_new;
> +			rams_size += 16;
> +		}
> +
> +		rams[i].start = res.start;
> +		rams[i++].end = res.end;
> +
> +		start = res.end + 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* go reverse */
> +	for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
> +		ret = (*func)(&rams[i], arg);
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +out:
> +	kvfree(rams);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * This function calls the @func callback against all memory ranges, which
>   * are ranges marked as IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOUCE_BUSY.
> -- 
> 2.41.0
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[patchwork-bot+linux-riscv]

Hello:

This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes)
by Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 21:00:27 +0800 you wrote:
> This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res() introduced in
> commit 8c86e70acead ("resource: provide new functions to walk through
> resources"), walks through a list of all the resources of System RAM
> in reversed order, i.e., from higher to lower.
> 
> It will be used in kexec_file code to load kernel, initrd etc when
> preparing kexec reboot.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [v2,1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()
    https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/7acf164b259d

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html

[PATCH 2/2] kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system RAM if required

[Baoquan He]

Kexec_load interface has been doing top down searching and loading
kernel/initrd/purgtory etc to prepare for kexec reboot. In that way,
the benefits are that it avoids to consume and fragment limited low
memory which satisfy DMA buffer allocation and big chunk of continuous
memory during system init; and avoids to stir with BIOS/FW reserved
or occupied areas, or corner case handling/work around/quirk occupied
areas when doing system init. By the way, the top-down searching and
loading of kexec-ed kernel is done in user space utility code.

For kexec_file loading, even if kexec_buf.top_down is 'true', it's simply
ignored. It calls walk_system_ram_res() directly to go through all
resources of System RAM bottom up, to find an available memory region,
then call locate_mem_hole_callback() to allocate memory in that found
memory region from top to down. This is not expected and inconsistent
with kexec_load.

Here check if kexec_buf.top_down is 'true' in kexec_walk_resources(),
if yes, call the newly added walk_system_ram_res_rev() to find memory
region of system RAM from top to down to load kernel/initrd etc.

Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/kexec_file.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/kexec_file.c b/kernel/kexec_file.c
index f9a419cd22d4..ba3ef30921b8 100644
--- a/kernel/kexec_file.c
+++ b/kernel/kexec_file.c
@@ -592,6 +592,8 @@ static int kexec_walk_resources(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
 					   IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY,
 					   crashk_res.start, crashk_res.end,
 					   kbuf, func);
+	else if (kbuf->top_down)
+		return walk_system_ram_res_rev(0, ULONG_MAX, kbuf, func);
 	else
 		return walk_system_ram_res(0, ULONG_MAX, kbuf, func);
 }
-- 
2.41.0

Re: [PATCH 0/2] kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system RAM if required

[patchwork-bot+linux-riscv]

Hello:

This series was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes)
by Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 17:16:56 +0800 you wrote:
> Justification:
> ==============
> Kexec_load interface has been doing top down searching and loading
> kernel/initrd/purgtory etc to prepare for kexec reboot. In that way,
> the benefits are that it avoids to consume and fragment limited low
> memory which satisfy DMA buffer allocation and big chunk of continuous
> memory during system init; and avoids to stir with BIOS/FW reserved
> or occupied areas, or corner case handling/work around/quirk occupied
> areas when doing system init. By the way, the top-down searching and
> loading of kexec-ed kernel is done in user space utility code.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()
    (no matching commit)
  - [2/2] kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system RAM if required
    https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/b3ba234171cd

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html

[PATCH 0/2] Kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system ram

[Baoquan He]

The current kexec_file ignores kexec_buf.top_down value when call
arch_kexec_walk_mem() to allocate memory for loading kernel/initrd
stuffs. This is not supposed to be what kexec_buf.top_down is used
for.

In patch 0001, introduce a new function walk_system_ram_res_rev()
which is a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), walks through resources
of System RAM from top to down. And patch 0001 is picked from AKASHI's
patchset which adds arm64 kexec_file support. His next round of post
won't need walk_system_ram_res_rev any more, so I take it into this
patchset and use it in patch 0002.

In patch 0002, check kexec_buf.top_down in arch_kexec_walk_mem(),
if its value is 'true', call walk_system_ram_res_rev(). Otherwise
call walk_system_ram_res().

AKASHI Takahiro (1):
  resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

Baoquan He (1):
  kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system RAM if required

 include/linux/ioport.h |  3 +++
 kernel/kexec_file.c    |  2 ++
 kernel/resource.c      | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+)

-- 
2.13.6

[PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Baoquan He]

From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>

This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res() introduced in
commit 8c86e70acead ("resource: provide new functions to walk through
resources"), walks through a list of all the resources of System RAM
in reversed order, i.e., from higher to lower.

It will be used in kexec_file code.

Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>

---
 include/linux/ioport.h |  3 +++
 kernel/resource.c      | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/ioport.h b/include/linux/ioport.h
index da0ebaec25f0..f12d95fe038b 100644
--- a/include/linux/ioport.h
+++ b/include/linux/ioport.h
@@ -277,6 +277,9 @@ extern int
 walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
 		    int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
 extern int
+walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
+			int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
+extern int
 walk_iomem_res_desc(unsigned long desc, unsigned long flags, u64 start, u64 end,
 		    void *arg, int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
 
diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
index e270b5048988..f456fc95f1b2 100644
--- a/kernel/resource.c
+++ b/kernel/resource.c
@@ -23,6 +23,8 @@
 #include <linux/pfn.h>
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/resource_ext.h>
+#include <linux/string.h>
+#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
 #include <asm/io.h>
 
 
@@ -470,6 +472,67 @@ int walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
 }
 
 /*
+ * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
+ * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
+ * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
+ * higher to lower.
+ */
+int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
+				int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
+{
+	struct resource res, *rams;
+	int rams_size = 16, i;
+	int ret = -1;
+
+	/* create a list */
+	rams = vmalloc(sizeof(struct resource) * rams_size);
+	if (!rams)
+		return ret;
+
+	res.start = start;
+	res.end = end;
+	res.flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
+	i = 0;
+	while ((res.start < res.end) &&
+		(!find_next_iomem_res(&res, IORES_DESC_NONE, true))) {
+		if (i >= rams_size) {
+			/* re-alloc */
+			struct resource *rams_new;
+			int rams_new_size;
+
+			rams_new_size = rams_size + 16;
+			rams_new = vmalloc(sizeof(struct resource)
+							* rams_new_size);
+			if (!rams_new)
+				goto out;
+
+			memcpy(rams_new, rams,
+					sizeof(struct resource) * rams_size);
+			vfree(rams);
+			rams = rams_new;
+			rams_size = rams_new_size;
+		}
+
+		rams[i].start = res.start;
+		rams[i++].end = res.end;
+
+		res.start = res.end + 1;
+		res.end = end;
+	}
+
+	/* go reverse */
+	for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
+		ret = (*func)(&rams[i], arg);
+		if (ret)
+			break;
+	}
+
+out:
+	vfree(rams);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+/*
  * This function calls the @func callback against all memory ranges, which
  * are ranges marked as IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOUCE_BUSY.
  */
-- 
2.13.6

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:37:21 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:

> From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
> 
> This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res() introduced in
> commit 8c86e70acead ("resource: provide new functions to walk through
> resources"), walks through a list of all the resources of System RAM
> in reversed order, i.e., from higher to lower.
> 
> It will be used in kexec_file code.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/kernel/resource.c
> +++ b/kernel/resource.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@
>  #include <linux/pfn.h>
>  #include <linux/mm.h>
>  #include <linux/resource_ext.h>
> +#include <linux/string.h>
> +#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>  #include <asm/io.h>
>  
>  
> @@ -470,6 +472,67 @@ int walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
>  }
>  
>  /*
> + * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
> + * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
> + * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
> + * higher to lower.
> + */

This should document the return value, as should walk_system_ram_res().
Why does it return -1 on error rather than an errno (ENOMEM)?

> +int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
> +				int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> +{
> +	struct resource res, *rams;
> +	int rams_size = 16, i;
> +	int ret = -1;
> +
> +	/* create a list */
> +	rams = vmalloc(sizeof(struct resource) * rams_size);
> +	if (!rams)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	res.start = start;
> +	res.end = end;
> +	res.flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
> +	i = 0;
> +	while ((res.start < res.end) &&
> +		(!find_next_iomem_res(&res, IORES_DESC_NONE, true))) {
> +		if (i >= rams_size) {
> +			/* re-alloc */
> +			struct resource *rams_new;
> +			int rams_new_size;
> +
> +			rams_new_size = rams_size + 16;
> +			rams_new = vmalloc(sizeof(struct resource)
> +							* rams_new_size);
> +			if (!rams_new)
> +				goto out;
> +
> +			memcpy(rams_new, rams,
> +					sizeof(struct resource) * rams_size);
> +			vfree(rams);
> +			rams = rams_new;
> +			rams_size = rams_new_size;
> +		}
> +
> +		rams[i].start = res.start;
> +		rams[i++].end = res.end;
> +
> +		res.start = res.end + 1;
> +		res.end = end;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* go reverse */
> +	for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
> +		ret = (*func)(&rams[i], arg);
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +	}

erk, this is pretty nasty.  Isn't there a better way :(

> +out:
> +	vfree(rams);
> +	return ret;
> +}

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Baoquan He]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks a lot for your reviewing!

On 03/22/18 at 03:29pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >  /*
> > + * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
> > + * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
> > + * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
> > + * higher to lower.
> > + */
> 
> This should document the return value, as should walk_system_ram_res().
> Why does it return -1 on error rather than an errno (ENOMEM)?

OK, will add sentences to tell this. So for walk_system_ram_res() only
'-1' indicates the failure of finding, '0' the success. While in
walk_system_ram_res_rev(), add '-ENOMEM' to indicate failure of vmalloc
allocation.

> 
> > +int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
> > +				int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> > +{
> > +	struct resource res, *rams;
> > +	int rams_size = 16, i;
> > +	int ret = -1;
> > +
> > +	/* create a list */
> > +	rams = vmalloc(sizeof(struct resource) * rams_size);
> > +	if (!rams)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	res.start = start;
> > +	res.end = end;
> > +	res.flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
> > +	i = 0;
> > +	while ((res.start < res.end) &&
> > +		(!find_next_iomem_res(&res, IORES_DESC_NONE, true))) {
> > +		if (i >= rams_size) {
> > +			/* re-alloc */
> > +			struct resource *rams_new;
> > +			int rams_new_size;
> > +
> > +			rams_new_size = rams_size + 16;
> > +			rams_new = vmalloc(sizeof(struct resource)
> > +							* rams_new_size);
> > +			if (!rams_new)
> > +				goto out;
> > +
> > +			memcpy(rams_new, rams,
> > +					sizeof(struct resource) * rams_size);
> > +			vfree(rams);
> > +			rams = rams_new;
> > +			rams_size = rams_new_size;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		rams[i].start = res.start;
> > +		rams[i++].end = res.end;
> > +
> > +		res.start = res.end + 1;
> > +		res.end = end;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* go reverse */
> > +	for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
> > +		ret = (*func)(&rams[i], arg);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			break;
> > +	}
> 
> erk, this is pretty nasty.  Isn't there a better way :(

Yes, this is not efficient.

In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever
thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if
it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure.
AKASHI's method is more acceptable, and currently only kexec has this
requirement.

> 
> > +out:
> > +	vfree(rams);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:58:45 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:

> > erk, this is pretty nasty.  Isn't there a better way :(
> 
> Yes, this is not efficient.
> 
> In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever
> thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if
> it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure.

Switching to a list_head sounds OK.  The only issue really is memory
consumption and surely we don't have tens of thousands of struct
resources floating about(?).  Or if we do have a lot, the machine is
presumably huge (hope?).

> AKASHI's method is more acceptable, and currently only kexec has this
> requirement.

What method is that?

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Baoquan He]

On 03/22/18 at 07:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:58:45 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > > erk, this is pretty nasty.  Isn't there a better way :(
> > 
> > Yes, this is not efficient.
> > 
> > In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever
> > thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if
> > it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure.
> 
> Switching to a list_head sounds OK.  The only issue really is memory
> consumption and surely we don't have tens of thousands of struct
> resources floating about(?).  Or if we do have a lot, the machine is
> presumably huge (hope?).

Yes. It doubles the memory consumption.

AFAIK, the biggest number of resrouces I heard of possibly is mentioned
in this user space kexec_tools commit. In this commit, Xunlei told on
SGI system with 64TB RAM, the array which we have been using to store
"System RAM"|"Reserved"|"ACPI **" regions is not big enough. In that
case, we need extra 8Byte*2048=16KB at most. With my understanding, this
increase is system wide, since each resource instance only needs its own
list_head member, right?

commit 4a6d67d9e938a7accf128aff23f8ad4bda67f729
Author: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu Mar 23 19:16:59 2017 +0800

    x86: Support large number of memory ranges
    
    We got a problem on one SGI 64TB machine, the current kexec-tools
    failed to work due to the insufficient ranges(MAX_MEMORY_RANGES)
    allowed which is defined as 1024(less than the ranges on the machine).
    The kcore header is insufficient due to the same reason as well.
    
    To solve this, this patch simply doubles "MAX_MEMORY_RANGES" and
    "KCORE_ELF_HEADERS_SIZE".
    
    Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
    Tested-by: Frank Ramsay <frank.ramsay@hpe.com>
    Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>

diff --git a/kexec/arch/i386/kexec-x86.h b/kexec/arch/i386/kexec-x86.h
index 33df352..51855f8 100644
--- a/kexec/arch/i386/kexec-x86.h
+++ b/kexec/arch/i386/kexec-x86.h
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 #ifndef KEXEC_X86_H
 #define KEXEC_X86_H
 
-#define MAX_MEMORY_RANGES 1024
+#define MAX_MEMORY_RANGES 2048


> 
> > AKASHI's method is more acceptable, and currently only kexec has this
> > requirement.
> 
> What method is that?

I meant this patch is made by AKASHI, he posted a patchset to add
kexec_file support for arm64. Among those patches this one is used to
arm64 kernel at top of system RAM. Later they change a different way to
search memory region to load kernel, so he dropped this patch.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:10:13 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 03/22/18 at 07:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:58:45 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > erk, this is pretty nasty.  Isn't there a better way :(
> > > 
> > > Yes, this is not efficient.
> > > 
> > > In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever
> > > thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if
> > > it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure.
> > 
> > Switching to a list_head sounds OK.  The only issue really is memory
> > consumption and surely we don't have tens of thousands of struct
> > resources floating about(?).  Or if we do have a lot, the machine is
> > presumably huge (hope?).
> 
> Yes. It doubles the memory consumption.
> 
> AFAIK, the biggest number of resrouces I heard of possibly is mentioned
> in this user space kexec_tools commit. In this commit, Xunlei told on
> SGI system with 64TB RAM, the array which we have been using to store
> "System RAM"|"Reserved"|"ACPI **" regions is not big enough. In that
> case, we need extra 8Byte*2048=16KB at most. With my understanding, this
> increase is system wide, since each resource instance only needs its own
> list_head member, right?

Yes.  That sounds perfectly acceptable.

It would be interesting to see what this approach looks like, if you
have time to toss something together?

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Baoquan He]

On 03/23/18 at 01:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:10:13 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 03/22/18 at 07:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:58:45 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > erk, this is pretty nasty.  Isn't there a better way :(
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, this is not efficient.
> > > > 
> > > > In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever
> > > > thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if
> > > > it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure.
> > > 
> > > Switching to a list_head sounds OK.  The only issue really is memory
> > > consumption and surely we don't have tens of thousands of struct
> > > resources floating about(?).  Or if we do have a lot, the machine is
> > > presumably huge (hope?).
> > 
> > Yes. It doubles the memory consumption.
> > 
> > AFAIK, the biggest number of resrouces I heard of possibly is mentioned
> > in this user space kexec_tools commit. In this commit, Xunlei told on
> > SGI system with 64TB RAM, the array which we have been using to store
> > "System RAM"|"Reserved"|"ACPI **" regions is not big enough. In that
> > case, we need extra 8Byte*2048=16KB at most. With my understanding, this
> > increase is system wide, since each resource instance only needs its own
> > list_head member, right?
> 
> Yes.  That sounds perfectly acceptable.
> 
> It would be interesting to see what this approach looks like, if you
> have time to toss something together?

OK, will make patches for reviewing. Thanks!

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Wei Yang]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:33:30PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>> 
>> Yes.  That sounds perfectly acceptable.
>> 
>> It would be interesting to see what this approach looks like, if you
>> have time to toss something together?
>
>OK, will make patches for reviewing. Thanks!

Hi, Baoquan, Andrew

I have come up with an implementation for top-down search the ram resources.
Hope this would meet your need.

>From b36d50487f1d4e4d6a5103965a27101b3121e0ea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:25:46 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] kernel/resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

As discussed on https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10300819/, this patch
comes up with a variant implementation of walk_system_ram_res_rev(), which
uses iteration instead of allocating array to store those resources.

Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/ioport.h |   3 ++
 kernel/resource.c      | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 116 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/ioport.h b/include/linux/ioport.h
index da0ebaec25f0..473f1d9cb97e 100644
--- a/include/linux/ioport.h
+++ b/include/linux/ioport.h
@@ -277,6 +277,9 @@ extern int
 walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
 		    int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
 extern int
+walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
+		    int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
+extern int
 walk_iomem_res_desc(unsigned long desc, unsigned long flags, u64 start, u64 end,
 		    void *arg, int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
 
diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
index 769109f20fb7..ddf6b4c41498 100644
--- a/kernel/resource.c
+++ b/kernel/resource.c
@@ -73,6 +73,38 @@ static struct resource *next_resource(struct resource *p, bool sibling_only)
 	return p->sibling;
 }
 
+static struct resource *prev_resource(struct resource *p, bool sibling_only)
+{
+	struct resource *prev;
+	if (NULL == iomem_resource.child)
+		return NULL;
+
+	if (p == NULL) {
+		prev = iomem_resource.child;
+		while (prev->sibling)
+			prev = prev->sibling;
+	} else {
+		if (p->parent->child == p) {
+			return p->parent;
+		}
+
+		for (prev = p->parent->child; prev->sibling != p;
+			prev = prev->sibling) {}
+	}
+
+	/* Caller wants to traverse through siblings only */
+	if (sibling_only)
+		return prev;
+
+	for (;prev->child;) {
+		prev = prev->child;
+
+		while (prev->sibling)
+			prev = prev->sibling;
+	}
+	return prev;
+}
+
 static void *r_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos)
 {
 	struct resource *p = v;
@@ -401,6 +433,47 @@ static int find_next_iomem_res(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
 	return 0;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Finds the highest iomem resource existing within [res->start.res->end).
+ * The caller must specify res->start, res->end, res->flags, and optionally
+ * desc.  If found, returns 0, res is overwritten, if not found, returns -1.
+ * This function walks the whole tree and not just first level children until
+ * and unless first_level_children_only is true.
+ */
+static int find_prev_iomem_res(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
+			       bool first_level_children_only)
+{
+	struct resource *p;
+
+	BUG_ON(!res);
+	BUG_ON(res->start >= res->end);
+
+	read_lock(&resource_lock);
+
+	for (p = prev_resource(NULL, first_level_children_only); p;
+		p = prev_resource(p, first_level_children_only)) {
+		if ((p->flags & res->flags) != res->flags)
+			continue;
+		if ((desc != IORES_DESC_NONE) && (desc != p->desc))
+			continue;
+		if (p->end < res->start) {
+			p = NULL;
+			break;
+		}
+		if ((p->end >= res->start) && (p->start < res->end))
+			break;
+	}
+
+	read_unlock(&resource_lock);
+	if (!p)
+		return -1;
+	/* copy data */
+	resource_clip(res, p->start, p->end);
+	res->flags = p->flags;
+	res->desc = p->desc;
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int __walk_iomem_res_desc(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
 				 bool first_level_children_only,
 				 void *arg,
@@ -422,6 +495,27 @@ static int __walk_iomem_res_desc(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int __walk_iomem_res_rev_desc(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
+				 bool first_level_children_only,
+				 void *arg,
+				 int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
+{
+	u64 orig_start = res->start;
+	int ret = -1;
+
+	while ((res->start < res->end) &&
+	       !find_prev_iomem_res(res, desc, first_level_children_only)) {
+		ret = (*func)(res, arg);
+		if (ret)
+			break;
+
+		res->end = res->start - 1;
+		res->start = orig_start;
+	}
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
 /*
  * Walks through iomem resources and calls func() with matching resource
  * ranges. This walks through whole tree and not just first level children.
@@ -468,6 +562,25 @@ int walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
 				     arg, func);
 }
 
+/*
+ * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
+ * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
+ * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
+ * higher to lower.
+ */
+int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
+				int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
+{
+	struct resource res;
+
+	res.start = start;
+	res.end = end;
+	res.flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
+
+	return __walk_iomem_res_rev_desc(&res, IORES_DESC_NONE, true,
+				     arg, func);
+}
+
 /*
  * This function calls the @func callback against all memory ranges, which
  * are ranges marked as IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOUCE_BUSY.
-- 
2.15.1


-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Baoquan He]

Hi Wei Yang,

On 03/25/18 at 12:13am, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:33:30PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> 
> >> Yes.  That sounds perfectly acceptable.
> >> 
> >> It would be interesting to see what this approach looks like, if you
> >> have time to toss something together?
> >
> >OK, will make patches for reviewing. Thanks!
> 
> Hi, Baoquan, Andrew
> 
> I have come up with an implementation for top-down search the ram resources.
> Hope this would meet your need.

Thanks for telling and your effort. Glad to know
I am not the only buyer of walk_system_ram_res_rev. I am fine with other
ways to make it, people can compare them and know which one is better.
I am working to use the list_head instead, the doubly linked list way
as Andrew suggested. Andrew and other people can help make a choice. It
won't be long.

Thanks
Baoquan

> 
> From b36d50487f1d4e4d6a5103965a27101b3121e0ea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:25:46 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] kernel/resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()
> 
> As discussed on https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10300819/, this patch
> comes up with a variant implementation of walk_system_ram_res_rev(), which
> uses iteration instead of allocating array to store those resources.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/ioport.h |   3 ++
>  kernel/resource.c      | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 116 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/ioport.h b/include/linux/ioport.h
> index da0ebaec25f0..473f1d9cb97e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ioport.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ioport.h
> @@ -277,6 +277,9 @@ extern int
>  walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
>  		    int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
>  extern int
> +walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
> +		    int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
> +extern int
>  walk_iomem_res_desc(unsigned long desc, unsigned long flags, u64 start, u64 end,
>  		    void *arg, int (*func)(struct resource *, void *));
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
> index 769109f20fb7..ddf6b4c41498 100644
> --- a/kernel/resource.c
> +++ b/kernel/resource.c
> @@ -73,6 +73,38 @@ static struct resource *next_resource(struct resource *p, bool sibling_only)
>  	return p->sibling;
>  }
>  
> +static struct resource *prev_resource(struct resource *p, bool sibling_only)
> +{
> +	struct resource *prev;
> +	if (NULL == iomem_resource.child)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	if (p == NULL) {
> +		prev = iomem_resource.child;
> +		while (prev->sibling)
> +			prev = prev->sibling;
> +	} else {
> +		if (p->parent->child == p) {
> +			return p->parent;
> +		}
> +
> +		for (prev = p->parent->child; prev->sibling != p;
> +			prev = prev->sibling) {}
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Caller wants to traverse through siblings only */
> +	if (sibling_only)
> +		return prev;
> +
> +	for (;prev->child;) {
> +		prev = prev->child;
> +
> +		while (prev->sibling)
> +			prev = prev->sibling;
> +	}
> +	return prev;
> +}
> +
>  static void *r_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos)
>  {
>  	struct resource *p = v;
> @@ -401,6 +433,47 @@ static int find_next_iomem_res(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Finds the highest iomem resource existing within [res->start.res->end).
> + * The caller must specify res->start, res->end, res->flags, and optionally
> + * desc.  If found, returns 0, res is overwritten, if not found, returns -1.
> + * This function walks the whole tree and not just first level children until
> + * and unless first_level_children_only is true.
> + */
> +static int find_prev_iomem_res(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
> +			       bool first_level_children_only)
> +{
> +	struct resource *p;
> +
> +	BUG_ON(!res);
> +	BUG_ON(res->start >= res->end);
> +
> +	read_lock(&resource_lock);
> +
> +	for (p = prev_resource(NULL, first_level_children_only); p;
> +		p = prev_resource(p, first_level_children_only)) {
> +		if ((p->flags & res->flags) != res->flags)
> +			continue;
> +		if ((desc != IORES_DESC_NONE) && (desc != p->desc))
> +			continue;
> +		if (p->end < res->start) {
> +			p = NULL;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +		if ((p->end >= res->start) && (p->start < res->end))
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	read_unlock(&resource_lock);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return -1;
> +	/* copy data */
> +	resource_clip(res, p->start, p->end);
> +	res->flags = p->flags;
> +	res->desc = p->desc;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int __walk_iomem_res_desc(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
>  				 bool first_level_children_only,
>  				 void *arg,
> @@ -422,6 +495,27 @@ static int __walk_iomem_res_desc(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static int __walk_iomem_res_rev_desc(struct resource *res, unsigned long desc,
> +				 bool first_level_children_only,
> +				 void *arg,
> +				 int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> +{
> +	u64 orig_start = res->start;
> +	int ret = -1;
> +
> +	while ((res->start < res->end) &&
> +	       !find_prev_iomem_res(res, desc, first_level_children_only)) {
> +		ret = (*func)(res, arg);
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +
> +		res->end = res->start - 1;
> +		res->start = orig_start;
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Walks through iomem resources and calls func() with matching resource
>   * ranges. This walks through whole tree and not just first level children.
> @@ -468,6 +562,25 @@ int walk_system_ram_res(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
>  				     arg, func);
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * This function, being a variant of walk_system_ram_res(), calls the @func
> + * callback against all memory ranges of type System RAM which are marked as
> + * IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM and IORESOUCE_BUSY in reversed order, i.e., from
> + * higher to lower.
> + */
> +int walk_system_ram_res_rev(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg,
> +				int (*func)(struct resource *, void *))
> +{
> +	struct resource res;
> +
> +	res.start = start;
> +	res.end = end;
> +	res.flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
> +
> +	return __walk_iomem_res_rev_desc(&res, IORES_DESC_NONE, true,
> +				     arg, func);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * This function calls the @func callback against all memory ranges, which
>   * are ranges marked as IORESOURCE_MEM and IORESOUCE_BUSY.
> -- 
> 2.15.1
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wei Yang
> Help you, Help me

Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

[Wei Yang]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:30:16PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>Hi Wei Yang,
>
>On 03/25/18 at 12:13am, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:33:30PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Yes.  That sounds perfectly acceptable.
>> >> 
>> >> It would be interesting to see what this approach looks like, if you
>> >> have time to toss something together?
>> >
>> >OK, will make patches for reviewing. Thanks!
>> 
>> Hi, Baoquan, Andrew
>> 
>> I have come up with an implementation for top-down search the ram resources.
>> Hope this would meet your need.
>
>Thanks for telling and your effort. Glad to know
>I am not the only buyer of walk_system_ram_res_rev. I am fine with other
>ways to make it, people can compare them and know which one is better.
>I am working to use the list_head instead, the doubly linked list way
>as Andrew suggested. Andrew and other people can help make a choice. It
>won't be long.
>

Sure,

Look forward your approach.

>Thanks
>Baoquan
>

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me