On 2023/3/3 11:01, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 03/02/23 at 11:32am, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> ......
>>> @@ -166,31 +169,51 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>>>     /* User specifies base address explicitly. */
>>>     if (crash_base) {
>>>             fixed_base = true;
>>> +           search_base = crash_base;
>>>             crash_max = crash_base + crash_size;
>>>     }
>>>  
>>>  retry:
>>>     crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN,
>>> -                                          crash_base, crash_max);
>>> +                                          search_base, crash_max);
>>>     if (!crash_base) {
>>>             /*
>>> -            * If the first attempt was for low memory, fall back to
>>> -            * high memory, the minimum required low memory will be
>>> -            * reserved later.
>>> +            * For crashkernel=size[KMG]@offset[KMG], print out failure
>>> +            * message if can't reserve the specified region.
>>>              */
>>> -           if (!fixed_base && (crash_max == CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX)) {
>>> +           if (fixed_base) {
>>> +                   pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in 
>>> use.\n");
>>
>> How about changing pr_info to pr_warn?
>>
>>> +                   return;
>>> +           }
>>> +
>>> +           /*
>>> +            * For crashkernel=size[KMG], if the first attempt was for
>>> +            * low memory, fall back to high memory, the minimum required
>>> +            * low memory will be reserved later.
>>> +            */
>>> +           if (!high && crash_max == CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX) {
>>>                     crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX;
>>> +                   search_base = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
>>>                     crash_low_size = DEFAULT_CRASH_KERNEL_LOW_SIZE;
>>>                     goto retry;
>>>             }
>>>  
>>> +           /*
>>> +            * For crashkernel=size[KMG],high, if the first attempt was
>>> +            * for high memory, fall back to low memory.
>>> +            */
>>> +           if (high && crash_max == CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX) {
>>
>> Adding unlikely to indicate that it is rare would be better.
>>
>> if (unlikely(high && crash_max == CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX))
> 
> Rethink about this and checked code in kernel, seems likely|unlikely are
> mostly used in highly frequent execution branch optimize code path, while 
> crashkernel resevatoin is one time execution during boot, we may not
> need to bother to add unlikely. What do you think?

OK.

> 
> 
>>
>>> +                   crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
>>> +                   search_base = 0;
>>> +                   goto retry;
>>> +           }
>>>             pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n",
>>>                     crash_size);
>>>             return;
>>>     }
>>>  
>>> -   if ((crash_base > CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX - crash_low_size) &&
>>> -        crash_low_size && reserve_crashkernel_low(crash_low_size)) {
>>> +   if ((crash_base >= CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX) && crash_low_size &&
>>> +        reserve_crashkernel_low(crash_low_size)) {
>>>             memblock_phys_free(crash_base, crash_size);
>>>             return;
>>>     }
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>>   Zhen Lei
>>
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Reply via email to