Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: kdump: simplify the reservation behaviour of crashkernel=,high
On 2023/3/24 1:25, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:12:08PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >> On 03/17/23 at 06:05pm, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:09:13PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: In fact, what I want to achieve is we set CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX to 4G fixedly on arm64, just like what we do on x86_64. As for RPi4 platform, we leave it to crashkernel=size@offset syntax. Two reasons for this: 1) crashkernel is needed on enterprise platform, such as workstation or server. While RPi4 is obviously not the target. I contacted several RPi4 players in Redhat and my friends, none of them ever played kdump testing. If they really have to, crashkernel=size@offset is enough for them to set. >>> >>> I'd like crashkernel=size (without @offset) on RPi4 to still do the >>> right thing: a low allocation at least as we had until recently (or >>> high+low where high here is maybe above 1GB). IOW, no regression for >>> this crashkernel=size case. We can then change the explicit >>> crashkernel=x,high to mean only above 4GB irrespective of the platform >>> and crashkernel=x,low to be below arm64_dma_phys_limit. >> >> Since crashkernel=,high and crashkernel=size fallback was added in arm64 >> recently, with my understanding, you are suggesting: >> >> on arm64: >> RPi4: >> crashkernel=size >> 0~1G: low memory (no regression introduced) > > And, if not enough low memory, fall back to memory above 1GB (for RPi4; > it would be above 4GB for any other system). > >> crashkernel=size,high >> 0~1G: low memory | 4G~top: high memory > > Yes. > >> Other normal system: >> crashkernel=size|crashkernel=size,high >> 0~4G: low memory | 4G~top: high memory > > Yes. > > IOW, specifying 'high' only forces the high allocation above 4GB instead > of arm64_dma_phys_limit, irrespective of the platform. If no 'high' > specified search_base remains CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX (1GB on RPi4, 4GB for > the rest). > 2) with the fixed CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX as 4G, we can easily fix the problem of base page mapping for the whole linear mapping if crsahkernel= is set in kernel parameter shown in [1] at bottom. >>> >>> That's a different problem ;). I should re-read that thread, forgot most >>> of the details but I recall one of the counter arguments was that there >>> isn't a strong case to unmap the crashkernel reservation. Now, if we >>> place crashdump kernel image goes in the 'high' reservation, can we not >>> leave the 'low' reservation mapped? We don't really care about it as it >>> wouldn't have any meaningful code/data to be preserved. If the 'high' >>> one goes above 4G always, we don't depend on the arm64_dma_phys_limit. >> >> Yes, this looks ideal. While it only works when crashkernel=,high case and >> it succeeds to reserve a memory region for the specified size of crashkernel >> high memory. At below, we have 4 cases of crashkernel= syntax: >> >> crashkernel=size >> 1)first attempt: low memory under arm64_dma_phys_limit >> 2)fallback: finding memory above 4G > > (2) should be 'finding memory above arm64_dma_phys_limit' to keep the > current behaviour for RPi4. > >> crashkernel=size,high >> 3)first attempt: finding memory above 4G >> 4)fallback: low memory under arm64_dma_phys_limit > > Yes. > >> case 3) works with your suggestion. However, 1), 2), 4) all need to >> defer to bootmem_init(). With these cases and different handling, >> reserve_crashkernel() could be too complicated. > > Ah, because of the fallback below arm64_dma_phys_limit as in (4), we > still can't move the full crashkernel reservation early. Well, we could > do it in two steps: (a) early attempt at crashkernel reservation above > 4G if 'high' was specified and we avoid mapping it if successful and (b) > do the late crashkernel reservation below arm64_dma_phys_limit and skip > unmapping as being too late. This way most server-like platforms would > get a reservation above 4G, unmapped. > >> I am wondering if we can cancel the protection of crashkernel memory >> region on arm64 for now. In earlier discussion, people questioned if the >> protection is necessary on arm64. After comparison, I would rather take >> away the protection method of crashkernel region since they try to >> protect in a chance in one million , while the base page mapping for the >> whole linear mapping is mitigating arm64 high end server always. > > This works for me. We can add the protection later for addresses above > 4GB only as mentioned above. Recently, I've also been rethinking the performance issues when kdump is enabled. I have a new idea. For crashkernel=X, we can temporarily search for free memory from the low address to the high address. As below: save_bottom_up = memblock_bottom_up(); if (!high) memblock_set_bottom_up(true); crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN, crash_base, crash_max); memblock_set_bottom_up(save_bottom_up); The final code change should b
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] kexec: Remove unnecessary arch hook
On 03/23/23 at 03:07pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 15:49:20 +0800 Baoquan He wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 03/07/23 at 04:44pm, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > From: Bjorn Helgaas > > > > > > There are no arch-specific things in arch_kexec_kernel_image_load(), so > > > remove it and just use the generic version. > > > > > > v1 is at: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221215182339.129803-1-helg...@kernel.org/ > > > > > > This v2 is trivially rebased to v6.3-rc1 and the commit log expanded > > > slightly. > > > > This is an obvious and good cleanup patchset, who should I ping to ask > > for accepting? It's touching kexec generic code, while the hook > > only exists on x86 ARCH. > > I grabbed them Thanks a lot, Andrew. ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] kexec: Remove unnecessary arch hook
On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 15:49:20 +0800 Baoquan He wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/07/23 at 04:44pm, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > From: Bjorn Helgaas > > > > There are no arch-specific things in arch_kexec_kernel_image_load(), so > > remove it and just use the generic version. > > > > v1 is at: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221215182339.129803-1-helg...@kernel.org/ > > > > This v2 is trivially rebased to v6.3-rc1 and the commit log expanded > > slightly. > > This is an obvious and good cleanup patchset, who should I ping to ask > for accepting? It's touching kexec generic code, while the hook > only exists on x86 ARCH. I grabbed them ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: kdump: simplify the reservation behaviour of crashkernel=,high
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:12:08PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > On 03/17/23 at 06:05pm, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:09:13PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > > In fact, what I want to achieve is we set CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX to 4G > > > fixedly on arm64, just like what we do on x86_64. As for RPi4 platform, > > > we leave it to crashkernel=size@offset syntax. Two reasons for this: > > > 1) crashkernel is needed on enterprise platform, such as workstation or > > > server. While RPi4 is obviously not the target. I contacted several RPi4 > > > players in Redhat and my friends, none of them ever played kdump > > > testing. If they really have to, crashkernel=size@offset is enough for > > > them to set. > > > > I'd like crashkernel=size (without @offset) on RPi4 to still do the > > right thing: a low allocation at least as we had until recently (or > > high+low where high here is maybe above 1GB). IOW, no regression for > > this crashkernel=size case. We can then change the explicit > > crashkernel=x,high to mean only above 4GB irrespective of the platform > > and crashkernel=x,low to be below arm64_dma_phys_limit. > > Since crashkernel=,high and crashkernel=size fallback was added in arm64 > recently, with my understanding, you are suggesting: > > on arm64: > RPi4: > crashkernel=size > 0~1G: low memory (no regression introduced) And, if not enough low memory, fall back to memory above 1GB (for RPi4; it would be above 4GB for any other system). > crashkernel=size,high > 0~1G: low memory | 4G~top: high memory Yes. > Other normal system: > crashkernel=size|crashkernel=size,high > 0~4G: low memory | 4G~top: high memory Yes. IOW, specifying 'high' only forces the high allocation above 4GB instead of arm64_dma_phys_limit, irrespective of the platform. If no 'high' specified search_base remains CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX (1GB on RPi4, 4GB for the rest). > > > 2) with the fixed CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX as 4G, we can easily fix the > > > problem of base page mapping for the whole linear mapping if crsahkernel= > > > is set in kernel parameter shown in [1] at bottom. > > > > That's a different problem ;). I should re-read that thread, forgot most > > of the details but I recall one of the counter arguments was that there > > isn't a strong case to unmap the crashkernel reservation. Now, if we > > place crashdump kernel image goes in the 'high' reservation, can we not > > leave the 'low' reservation mapped? We don't really care about it as it > > wouldn't have any meaningful code/data to be preserved. If the 'high' > > one goes above 4G always, we don't depend on the arm64_dma_phys_limit. > > Yes, this looks ideal. While it only works when crashkernel=,high case and > it succeeds to reserve a memory region for the specified size of crashkernel > high memory. At below, we have 4 cases of crashkernel= syntax: > > crashkernel=size > 1)first attempt: low memory under arm64_dma_phys_limit > 2)fallback: finding memory above 4G (2) should be 'finding memory above arm64_dma_phys_limit' to keep the current behaviour for RPi4. > crashkernel=size,high > 3)first attempt: finding memory above 4G > 4)fallback: low memory under arm64_dma_phys_limit Yes. > case 3) works with your suggestion. However, 1), 2), 4) all need to > defer to bootmem_init(). With these cases and different handling, > reserve_crashkernel() could be too complicated. Ah, because of the fallback below arm64_dma_phys_limit as in (4), we still can't move the full crashkernel reservation early. Well, we could do it in two steps: (a) early attempt at crashkernel reservation above 4G if 'high' was specified and we avoid mapping it if successful and (b) do the late crashkernel reservation below arm64_dma_phys_limit and skip unmapping as being too late. This way most server-like platforms would get a reservation above 4G, unmapped. > I am wondering if we can cancel the protection of crashkernel memory > region on arm64 for now. In earlier discussion, people questioned if the > protection is necessary on arm64. After comparison, I would rather take > away the protection method of crashkernel region since they try to > protect in a chance in one million , while the base page mapping for the > whole linear mapping is mitigating arm64 high end server always. This works for me. We can add the protection later for addresses above 4GB only as mentioned above. -- Catalin ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] kexec: Remove unnecessary arch hook
Hi, On 03/07/23 at 04:44pm, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > From: Bjorn Helgaas > > There are no arch-specific things in arch_kexec_kernel_image_load(), so > remove it and just use the generic version. > > v1 is at: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221215182339.129803-1-helg...@kernel.org/ > > This v2 is trivially rebased to v6.3-rc1 and the commit log expanded > slightly. This is an obvious and good cleanup patchset, who should I ping to ask for accepting? It's touching kexec generic code, while the hook only exists on x86 ARCH. Thanks Baoquan ___ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
