Hi Akashi,
On 15/05/18 18:11, James Morse wrote:
> On 25/04/18 07:26, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> Enabling crash dump (kdump) includes
>> * prepare contents of ELF header of a core dump file, /proc/vmcore,
>> using crash_prepare_elf64_headers(), and
>> * add two device tree properties, "linux,usable-memory-range" and
>> "linux,elfcorehdr", which represent repsectively a memory range
>> to be used by crash dump kernel and the header's location
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
>> b/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
>> index 37c0a9dc2e47..ec674f4d267c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
>> +static struct crash_mem *get_crash_memory_ranges(void)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int nr_ranges;
>> + struct crash_mem *cmem;
>> +
>> + nr_ranges = 1; /* for exclusion of crashkernel region */
>> + walk_system_ram_res(0, -1, &nr_ranges, get_nr_ranges_callback);
>> +
>> + cmem = vmalloc(sizeof(struct crash_mem) +
>> + sizeof(struct crash_mem_range) * nr_ranges);
>> + if (!cmem)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + cmem->max_nr_ranges = nr_ranges;
>> + cmem->nr_ranges = 0;
>> + walk_system_ram_res(0, -1, cmem, add_mem_range_callback);
>> +
>> + /* Exclude crashkernel region */
>> + if (crash_exclude_mem_range(cmem, crashk_res.start, crashk_res.end)) {
>> + vfree(cmem);
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return cmem;
>> +}
>
> Could this function be included in prepare_elf_headers() so that the alloc()
> and
> free() occur together.
>
>
>> +static int prepare_elf_headers(void **addr, unsigned long *sz)
>> +{
>> + struct crash_mem *cmem;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + cmem = get_crash_memory_ranges();
>> + if (!cmem)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + ret = crash_prepare_elf64_headers(cmem, true, addr, sz);
>> +
>> + vfree(cmem);
>
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>
> All this is moving memory-range information from core-code's
> walk_system_ram_res() into core-code's struct crash_mem, and excluding
> crashk_res, which again is accessible to the core code.
>
> It looks like this is duplicated in arch/x86 and arch/arm64 because arm64
> doesn't have a second 'crashk_low_res' region, and always wants elf64, instead
> of when IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64).
Thinking about it some more: don't we want to walk memblock here, not
walk_system_ram_res()? What we want is a list of not-nomap regions that the
kernel may have been using, to form part of vmcore.
walk_system_ram_res() is becoming a murkier list of maybe-nomap, maybe-reserved.
I think we should walk the same list here as we do in patch 4.
Thanks,
James
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
