Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock: define functions to set the usable memory range
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 22:05, Frank van der Linden wrote: > > Meanwhile, it seems that this issue was already addressed in: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211215021348.8766-1-kernelf...@gmail.com/ > > ..which has now been pulled in, and sent to stable@ for 5.15. I > somehow missed that message, and sent my change in a few weeks > later. > > The fix to just reserve the ranges does seem a bit cleaner overall, > but this will do fine. > Works for me. ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock: define functions to set the usable memory range
Meanwhile, it seems that this issue was already addressed in: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211215021348.8766-1-kernelf...@gmail.com/ ..which has now been pulled in, and sent to stable@ for 5.15. I somehow missed that message, and sent my change in a few weeks later. The fix to just reserve the ranges does seem a bit cleaner overall, but this will do fine. Thanks! - Frank ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock: define functions to set the usable memory range
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 07:33:11PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 08:44:41PM +, Frank van der Linden wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:31:58PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > > > > @@ -481,6 +481,8 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_reserved_size(void); > > > > phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void); > > > > phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void); > > > > void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit); > > > > +void memblock_set_usable_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > > > +void memblock_enforce_usable_range(void); > > > > void memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > > > void memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit); > > > > > > We already have 3 very similar interfaces that deal with memory capping. > > > Now you suggest to add fourth that will "generically" solve a single use > > > case of DT, EFI and kdump interaction on arm64. > > > > > > Looks like a workaround for a fundamental issue of incompatibility between > > > DT and EFI wrt memory registration. > > > > Yep, I figured this would be the main argument against this - arm64 > > already added several other more-or-less special cased interfaces over > > time. > > > > I'm more than happy to solve this in a different way. > > > > What would you suggest: > > > > 1) Try to merge the similar interfaces in to one. > > 2) Just deal with it at a lower (arm64) level? > > 3) Some other way? > > We've discussed this with Ard on IRC, and our conclusion was that on arm64 > kdump kernel should have memblock.memory exactly the same as the normal > kernel. Then, the memory outside usable-memory-range should be reserved so > that kdump kernel won't step over it. > > With that, simple (untested) patch below could be what we need: > > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c > index bdca35284ceb..371418dffaf1 100644 > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c > @@ -1275,7 +1275,8 @@ void __init early_init_dt_scan_nodes(void) > of_scan_flat_dt(early_init_dt_scan_memory, NULL); > > /* Handle linux,usable-memory-range property */ > - memblock_cap_memory_range(cap_mem_addr, cap_mem_size); > + memblock_reserve(0, cap_mem_addr); > + memblock_reserve(cap_mem_addr + cap_mem_size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX); > } > > bool __init early_init_dt_scan(void *params) Ok, tested this on 5.17-rc, and it's working OK there. Main kernel has 32G, crash kernel gets 512M: Main kernel: [0.00] Zone ranges: [0.00] DMA [mem 0x4000-0x] [0.00] DMA32empty [0.00] Normal [mem 0x0001-0x000b96ff] [0.00] Movable zone start for each node [0.00] Early memory node ranges [0.00] node 0: [mem 0x4000-0x786e] [0.00] node 0: [mem 0x786f-0x7872] [0.00] node 0: [mem 0x7873-0x7bbf] [0.00] node 0: [mem 0x7bc0-0x7bfd] [0.00] node 0: [mem 0x7bfe-0x7fff] [0.00] node 0: [mem 0x0004-0x000b96ff] [0.00] Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x4000-0x000b96ff] [0.00] On node 0, zone Normal: 4096 pages in unavailable ranges [0.00] cma: Reserved 64 MiB at 0x7c00 [0.00] crashkernel reserved: 0x5440 - 0x7440 (512 MB) Crash kernel: [0.00] Zone ranges: [0.00] DMA [mem 0x5440-0x7bfd] [0.00] DMA32empty [0.00] Normal empty [0.00] Movable zone start for each node [0.00] Early memory node ranges [0.00] node 0: [mem 0x5440-0x743f] [0.00] node 0: [mem 0x786f-0x7872] [0.00] node 0: [mem 0x7bc0-0x7bfd] [0.00] Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x5440-0x7bfd] [0.00] On node 0, zone DMA: 17408 pages in unavailable ranges [0.00] On node 0, zone DMA: 17136 pages in unavailable ranges [0.00] On node 0, zone DMA: 13520 pages in unavailable ranges [0.00] On node 0, zone DMA: 16416 pages in unavailable ranges Not sure why I had trouble with the same on 5.15, I'll have to look at that again. But this seems fine for 5.16+ Thanks, - Frank ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock: define functions to set the usable memory range
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 12:10:46AM +, Frank van der Linden wrote: > Thanks for discussing this further! I tried the above change, although > I wrapped it in an if (cap_mem_size != 0), so that a normal kernel > doesn't get its entire memory marked as reserved. Just to clarify: I had to do that because the code is slightly different on 5.15, where I tried it. It wasn't a bug in the proposed patch. Anyway, will try 5.17-rc tomorrow, I'll let you know, thanks again. - Frank ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock: define functions to set the usable memory range
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 07:33:11PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 08:44:41PM +, Frank van der Linden wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:31:58PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > > > > @@ -481,6 +481,8 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_reserved_size(void); > > > > phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void); > > > > phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void); > > > > void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit); > > > > +void memblock_set_usable_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > > > +void memblock_enforce_usable_range(void); > > > > void memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > > > void memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit); > > > > > > We already have 3 very similar interfaces that deal with memory capping. > > > Now you suggest to add fourth that will "generically" solve a single use > > > case of DT, EFI and kdump interaction on arm64. > > > > > > Looks like a workaround for a fundamental issue of incompatibility between > > > DT and EFI wrt memory registration. > > > > Yep, I figured this would be the main argument against this - arm64 > > already added several other more-or-less special cased interfaces over > > time. > > > > I'm more than happy to solve this in a different way. > > > > What would you suggest: > > > > 1) Try to merge the similar interfaces in to one. > > 2) Just deal with it at a lower (arm64) level? > > 3) Some other way? > > We've discussed this with Ard on IRC, and our conclusion was that on arm64 > kdump kernel should have memblock.memory exactly the same as the normal > kernel. Then, the memory outside usable-memory-range should be reserved so > that kdump kernel won't step over it. > > With that, simple (untested) patch below could be what we need: > > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c > index bdca35284ceb..371418dffaf1 100644 > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c > @@ -1275,7 +1275,8 @@ void __init early_init_dt_scan_nodes(void) > of_scan_flat_dt(early_init_dt_scan_memory, NULL); > > /* Handle linux,usable-memory-range property */ > - memblock_cap_memory_range(cap_mem_addr, cap_mem_size); > + memblock_reserve(0, cap_mem_addr); > + memblock_reserve(cap_mem_addr + cap_mem_size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX); > } > > bool __init early_init_dt_scan(void *params) Thanks for discussing this further! I tried the above change, although I wrapped it in an if (cap_mem_size != 0), so that a normal kernel doesn't get its entire memory marked as reserved. The crash kernel hung without producing output - I haven't chased that down. This particular kernel was a bit older (5.15), so I'll try again with 5.17-rc to make sure. - Frank ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock: define functions to set the usable memory range
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 08:44:41PM +, Frank van der Linden wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:31:58PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > > > @@ -481,6 +481,8 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_reserved_size(void); > > > phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void); > > > phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void); > > > void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit); > > > +void memblock_set_usable_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > > +void memblock_enforce_usable_range(void); > > > void memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > > void memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit); > > > > We already have 3 very similar interfaces that deal with memory capping. > > Now you suggest to add fourth that will "generically" solve a single use > > case of DT, EFI and kdump interaction on arm64. > > > > Looks like a workaround for a fundamental issue of incompatibility between > > DT and EFI wrt memory registration. > > Yep, I figured this would be the main argument against this - arm64 > already added several other more-or-less special cased interfaces over > time. > > I'm more than happy to solve this in a different way. > > What would you suggest: > > 1) Try to merge the similar interfaces in to one. > 2) Just deal with it at a lower (arm64) level? > 3) Some other way? We've discussed this with Ard on IRC, and our conclusion was that on arm64 kdump kernel should have memblock.memory exactly the same as the normal kernel. Then, the memory outside usable-memory-range should be reserved so that kdump kernel won't step over it. With that, simple (untested) patch below could be what we need: diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c index bdca35284ceb..371418dffaf1 100644 --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c @@ -1275,7 +1275,8 @@ void __init early_init_dt_scan_nodes(void) of_scan_flat_dt(early_init_dt_scan_memory, NULL); /* Handle linux,usable-memory-range property */ - memblock_cap_memory_range(cap_mem_addr, cap_mem_size); + memblock_reserve(0, cap_mem_addr); + memblock_reserve(cap_mem_addr + cap_mem_size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX); } bool __init early_init_dt_scan(void *params) > Thanks, > > - Frank > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock: define functions to set the usable memory range
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 08:44:41PM +, Frank van der Linden wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:31:58PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > > > @@ -481,6 +481,8 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_reserved_size(void); > > > phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void); > > > phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void); > > > void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit); > > > +void memblock_set_usable_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > > +void memblock_enforce_usable_range(void); > > > void memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > > void memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit); > > > > We already have 3 very similar interfaces that deal with memory capping. > > Now you suggest to add fourth that will "generically" solve a single use > > case of DT, EFI and kdump interaction on arm64. > > > > Looks like a workaround for a fundamental issue of incompatibility between > > DT and EFI wrt memory registration. > > Yep, I figured this would be the main argument against this - arm64 > already added several other more-or-less special cased interfaces over > time. > > I'm more than happy to solve this in a different way. > > What would you suggest: > > 1) Try to merge the similar interfaces in to one. This could be a nice cleanup regardless of how we handle "linux,usable-memory-range". > 2) Just deal with it at a lower (arm64) level? Probably it will be the simplest solution in the short term. > 3) Some other way? I'm not expert enough on DT and EFI to see how they communicate the linux,usable-memory-range property. One thought I have is since we already create a DT for kexec/kdump why can't we add some data to EFI memory description similar to linux,usable-memore-range? Another thing is, if we could presume that DT and EFI are consistent in their view what is the span of the physical memory, we could drop memblock_remove(EVERYTHIING) and early_init_dt_add_memory_arch() from efi_init::reserve_regions() and then the loop over EFI memory descriptors will only take care of reserved and nomap regions. > Thanks, > > - Frank > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock: define functions to set the usable memory range
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:31:58PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > > @@ -481,6 +481,8 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_reserved_size(void); > > phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void); > > phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void); > > void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit); > > +void memblock_set_usable_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > +void memblock_enforce_usable_range(void); > > void memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > void memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit); > > We already have 3 very similar interfaces that deal with memory capping. > Now you suggest to add fourth that will "generically" solve a single use > case of DT, EFI and kdump interaction on arm64. > > Looks like a workaround for a fundamental issue of incompatibility between > DT and EFI wrt memory registration. Yep, I figured this would be the main argument against this - arm64 already added several other more-or-less special cased interfaces over time. I'm more than happy to solve this in a different way. What would you suggest: 1) Try to merge the similar interfaces in to one. 2) Just deal with it at a lower (arm64) level? 3) Some other way? Thanks, - Frank ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock: define functions to set the usable memory range
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 09:08:07PM +, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> Some architectures might limit the usable memory range based
> on a firmware property, like "linux,usable-memory-range"
> for ARM crash kernels. This limit needs to be enforced after
> firmware memory map processing has been done, which might be
> e.g. FDT or EFI, or both.
>
> Define an interface for it that is firmware type agnostic.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden
> ---
> include/linux/memblock.h | 2 ++
> mm/memblock.c| 37 +
> 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 34de69b3b8ba..6128efa50d33 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -481,6 +481,8 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_reserved_size(void);
> phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void);
> phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void);
> void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit);
> +void memblock_set_usable_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> +void memblock_enforce_usable_range(void);
> void memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> void memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit);
We already have 3 very similar interfaces that deal with memory capping.
Now you suggest to add fourth that will "generically" solve a single use
case of DT, EFI and kdump interaction on arm64.
Looks like a workaround for a fundamental issue of incompatibility between
DT and EFI wrt memory registration.
> bool memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr);
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 5096500b2647..cb961965f3ad 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ unsigned long max_low_pfn;
> unsigned long min_low_pfn;
> unsigned long max_pfn;
> unsigned long long max_possible_pfn;
> +phys_addr_t usable_start, usable_size;
>
> static struct memblock_region
> memblock_memory_init_regions[INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS] __initdata_memblock;
> static struct memblock_region
> memblock_reserved_init_regions[INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS]
> __initdata_memblock;
> @@ -1715,6 +1716,42 @@ void __init memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t
> base, phys_addr_t size)
> base + size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * memblock_set_usable_range - set usable memory range
> + * @base: physical address that is the start of the range
> + * @size: size of the range.
> + *
> + * Used when a firmware property limits the range of usable
> + * memory, like for the linux,usable-memory-range property
> + * used by ARM crash kernels.
> + */
> +void __init memblock_set_usable_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> +{
> + usable_start = base;
> + usable_size = size;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * memblock_enforce_usable_range - cap memory ranges to usable range
> + *
> + * Some architectures call this during boot after firmware memory ranges
> + * have been scanned, to make sure they fall within the usable range
> + * set by memblock_set_usable_range.
> + *
> + * This may be called more than once if there are multiple firmware sources
> + * for memory ranges.
> + *
> + * Avoid "no memory registered" warning - the warning itself is
> + * useful, but we know this can be called with no registered
> + * memory (e.g. when the synthetic DT for the crash kernel has
> + * been parsed on EFI arm64 systems).
> + */
> +void __init memblock_enforce_usable_range(void)
> +{
> + if (memblock_memory->total_size)
> + memblock_cap_memory_range(usable_start, usable_size);
> +}
> +
> void __init memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit)
> {
> phys_addr_t max_addr;
> --
> 2.32.0
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
___
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
