[PATCH] kasan: avoid overflowing quarantine size on low memory systems

If the total amount of memory assigned to quarantine is less than the amount of memory assigned to per-cpu quarantines, |new_quarantine_size| may overflow. Instead, set it to zero. Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov Fixes: 55834c59098d ("mm: kasan: initial memory quarantine implementation")

RE: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

> However, it appears that the same process, dTi-lm, is still chosen for oom > kill > because lowmem_deathpending_timeout has expired. > > So this looks like a problem if the constantly chosen process cannot exit. > It would have been helpful to have the stack of pid 27289 in the log to see >

RE: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

> However, it appears that the same process, dTi-lm, is still chosen for oom > kill > because lowmem_deathpending_timeout has expired. > > So this looks like a problem if the constantly chosen process cannot exit. > It would have been helpful to have the stack of pid 27289 in the log to see >

Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

ll hang, no process can be > select to kill. > > i found the the value of "lowmem_deathpending_timeout" will be modified > strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it > had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory

Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

ll hang, no process can be > select to kill. > > i found the the value of "lowmem_deathpending_timeout" will be modified > strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it > had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory

RE: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

> > > > Signed-off-by: Figo Zhang > > As you ignored my instructions to you, I'm going to just ignore this patch, > sorry. Now discarded. > I am no at intel kernel group (SSG OTC), I am at CCG CCE. I will involve the intel open source guys if they like to help. Hi fengguang: Would you like

Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

ndroid system UI will hang, no process can be > select to kill. > > i found the the value of "lowmem_deathpending_timeout" will be modified > strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it > had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop

[PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

will hang, no process can be select to kill. i found the the value of "lowmem_deathpending_timeout" will be modified strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which will cause the an

Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 04:34:56PM +0800, Figo.zhang wrote: > From: Figo This doesn't match your signed-off-by name :( > Signed-off-by: Figo.zhang I doubt that you have a '.' in your name :( Again, please consult the Intel Linux kernel group for how to do this correctly, I will not accept

[PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

system UI will hang, no process can be select to kill. i found the the value of "lowmem_deathpending_timeout" will be modified strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which wi

[PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

found the the value of "lowmem_deathpending_timeout" will be modified strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which will cause the android system UI hang, because no process will b

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 12:19:08AM +, Zhang, Tianfei wrote: > > Great, please use that, but why does your email address show a different > > name? Intel has standards that you have to follow when submitting Linux > > kernel patches, please consult them before you resend. > > > > Hi greg, I

RE: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

> Great, please use that, but why does your email address show a different > name? Intel has standards that you have to follow when submitting Linux > kernel patches, please consult them before you resend. > Hi greg, I should resend this patch using [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1]?

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 11:24:14PM +, Zhang, Tianfei wrote: > > > Android System UI hang when run heavy monkey stress test. > > > > What changed from v1 of this patch? Please describe that below the --- > > line. > V2，I just modify my comments. Then say so. How am I supposed to know? > >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 12:42:31AM +0100, Harald Arnesen wrote: > Greg KH [2015-12-26 19:12]: > > > I need a "full" name here, not a "short" name, sorry, before I can do > > anything with this patch. > > I don't know if that is the case here, but: > > You know, of course, that there are

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

Greg KH [2015-12-26 19:12]: > I need a "full" name here, not a "short" name, sorry, before I can do > anything with this patch. I don't know if that is the case here, but: You know, of course, that there are societies in this world where only one name is used? -- Hilsen Harald -- To

RE: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

> > Android System UI hang when run heavy monkey stress test. > > What changed from v1 of this patch? Please describe that below the --- > line. V2，I just modify my comments. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Figo > > I need a "full" name here, not a "short" name, sorry, before I can do anything >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 03:39:42AM +0800, Figo wrote: > Android System UI hang when run heavy monkey stress test. What changed from v1 of this patch? Please describe that below the --- line. > > Signed-off-by: Figo I need a "full" name here, not a "short" name, sorry, before I can do

[PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

fied strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which will cause the android system UI hang, because no process will be kill. commit e5d7965f88a3 ("staging: android: lowmemorykiller: Don't

[PATCH 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which will cause the android system UI hang, because no process will be kill. commit e5d7965f88a3 ("staging: android: lowmemorykiller: Don't wait more than one second for a process to die"

[PATCH 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which will cause the android system UI hang, because no process will be kill. commit e5d7965f88a3 ("staging: android: lowmemorykiller: Don't wait more than one second for a process to die"

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 03:39:42AM +0800, Figo wrote: > Android System UI hang when run heavy monkey stress test. What changed from v1 of this patch? Please describe that below the --- line. > > Signed-off-by: Figo I need a "full" name here, not a "short" name,

[PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

fied strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which will cause the android system UI hang, because no process will be kill. commit e5d7965f88a3 ("staging: android: lowmemorykiller: Don't

[PATCH 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which will cause the android system UI hang, because no process will be kill. commit e5d7965f88a3 ("staging: android: lowmemorykiller: Don't wait more than one second for a process to die"

[PATCH 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which will cause the android system UI hang, because no process will be kill. commit e5d7965f88a3 ("staging: android: lowmemorykiller: Don't wait more than one second for a process to die"

RE: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

> > Android System UI hang when run heavy monkey stress test. > > What changed from v1 of this patch? Please describe that below the --- > line. V2，I just modify my comments. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Figo > > I need a "full" name here, not a "short" name, sorry,

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 12:42:31AM +0100, Harald Arnesen wrote: > Greg KH [2015-12-26 19:12]: > > > I need a "full" name here, not a "short" name, sorry, before I can do > > anything with this patch. > > I don't know if that is the case here, but: > > You know, of course, that there are

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 11:24:14PM +, Zhang, Tianfei wrote: > > > Android System UI hang when run heavy monkey stress test. > > > > What changed from v1 of this patch? Please describe that below the --- > > line. > V2，I just modify my comments. Then say so. How am I supposed to know? > >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

Greg KH [2015-12-26 19:12]: > I need a "full" name here, not a "short" name, sorry, before I can do > anything with this patch. I don't know if that is the case here, but: You know, of course, that there are societies in this world where only one name is used? -- Hilsen Harald -- To

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 12:19:08AM +, Zhang, Tianfei wrote: > > Great, please use that, but why does your email address show a different > > name? Intel has standards that you have to follow when submitting Linux > > kernel patches, please consult them before you resend. > > > > Hi greg, I

Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 04:34:56PM +0800, Figo.zhang wrote: > From: Figo This doesn't match your signed-off-by name :( > Signed-off-by: Figo.zhang I doubt that you have a '.' in your name :( Again, please consult the Intel Linux kernel group

[PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

will hang, no process can be select to kill. i found the the value of "lowmem_deathpending_timeout" will be modified strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which will cause the an

RE: [PATCH v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

> Great, please use that, but why does your email address show a different > name? Intel has standards that you have to follow when submitting Linux > kernel patches, please consult them before you resend. > Hi greg, I should resend this patch using [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1]?

[PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

process can be select to kill. i found the the value of "lowmem_deathpending_timeout" will be modified strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop in low memory state which will cause the android system UI han

[PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

en this happened, the android system UI will hang, no process can be select to kill. i found the the value of "lowmem_deathpending_timeout" will be modified strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop

Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

ndroid system UI will hang, no process can be > select to kill. > > i found the the value of "lowmem_deathpending_timeout" will be modified > strangely, like in last killing, the value is 4296194081, but why not it > had changed to 4296195109? so it will cause the deadloop

RE: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] fix a dead loop when in heavy low memory

> > > > Signed-off-by: Figo Zhang > > As you ignored my instructions to you, I'm going to just ignore this patch, > sorry. Now discarded. > I am no at intel kernel group (SSG OTC), I am at CCG CCE. I will involve the intel open source guys if they like to help. Hi

Re: [PATCH] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

rvation of the low portion fails. Then kexec can load the kdump kernel successfully, but booting the kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. The low memory allocation for the kdump kernel can fail on large systems for a couple of reasons. For example, the manually specified crashkernel low

Re: [PATCH] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

ot;low" > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is > because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large > systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specified cra

Re: [PATCH] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

cceeds, but the reservation of the "low" > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is > because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large > systems for reasons. E.g it coul

Re: [PATCH] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

cceeds, but the reservation of the "low" > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is > because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large > systems for reasons. E.g it coul

Re: [PATCH] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

ot;low" > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is > because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large > systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specified cra

Re: [PATCH] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

the reservation of the high portion succeeds but the reservation of the low portion fails. Then kexec can load the kdump kernel successfully, but booting the kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. The low memory allocation for the kdump kernel can fail on large systems for a couple of reasons. For exa

[PATCH] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

ully, but the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specified crashkernel low memory is too large to find in memblock region. In this patch add return value for rese

[PATCH] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

ully, but the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specified crashkernel low memory is too large to find in memblock region. In this patch add return value for rese

Re: [Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On 09/22/15 at 05:08pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:02:55 +0800 Baoquan He wrote: > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > low_base = memblock_find_in_range(low_size, (1ULL<<32), > > > > low_size, alignment); > > > > > > > >

Re: [Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:02:55 +0800 Baoquan He wrote: > > > > > } > > > > > > low_base = memblock_find_in_range(low_size, (1ULL<<32), > > > low_size, alignment); > > > > > > if (!low_base) { > > > - if (!auto_set) > > > -

Re: [Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

@ -522,17 +522,15 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void) > > } else { > > /* passed with crashkernel=0,low ? */ > > if (!low_size) > > - return; > > + return 0; > > What's happening here? It's returning &q

Re: [Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

" > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is > because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large > systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specified cra

Re: [Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

e "low" > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is > because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large > systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specified cra

[Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

ully, but the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specified crashkernel low memory is too large to find in memblock region. In this patch add return value for rese

Re: [Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

tion of the "low" > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is > because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large > systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specifi

Re: [Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:02:55 +0800 Baoquan He wrote: > > > > > } > > > > > > low_base = memblock_find_in_range(low_size, (1ULL<<32), > > > low_size, alignment); > > > > > > if (!low_base) { > > > - if (!auto_set) > > > -

Re: [Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On 09/22/15 at 05:08pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:02:55 +0800 Baoquan He wrote: > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > low_base = memblock_find_in_range(low_size, (1ULL<<32), > > > > low_size, alignment);

Re: [Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

@ -522,17 +522,15 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void) > > } else { > > /* passed with crashkernel=0,low ? */ > > if (!low_size) > > - return; > > + return 0; > > What's happening here? It's returning &q

Re: [Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

e "low" > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is > because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large > systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specified cra

[Patch v4] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

ully, but the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specified crashkernel low memory is too large to find in memblock region. In this patch add return value for rese

Re: [regression 4.2-rc3] loop: xfstests xfs/073 deadlocked in low memory conditions

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 01:54:12PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 21-07-15 10:58:59, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [CCing more people from a potentially affected fs - the reference to the > > email thread is: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm=143744398020147=2] ... > > > The didn't used to happen,

Re: [regression 4.2-rc3] loop: xfstests xfs/073 deadlocked in low memory conditions

On Tue 21-07-15 10:58:59, Michal Hocko wrote: > [CCing more people from a potentially affected fs - the reference to the > email thread is: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm=143744398020147=2] > > On Tue 21-07-15 11:59:34, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Hi Ming, > > > > With the recent merge of the loop

Re: [regression 4.2-rc3] loop: xfstests xfs/073 deadlocked in low memory conditions

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 01:54:12PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 21-07-15 10:58:59, Michal Hocko wrote: [CCing more people from a potentially affected fs - the reference to the email thread is: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mmm=143744398020147w=2] ... The didn't used to happen, because

Re: [regression 4.2-rc3] loop: xfstests xfs/073 deadlocked in low memory conditions

On Tue 21-07-15 10:58:59, Michal Hocko wrote: [CCing more people from a potentially affected fs - the reference to the email thread is: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mmm=143744398020147w=2] On Tue 21-07-15 11:59:34, Dave Chinner wrote: Hi Ming, With the recent merge of the loop device

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

itialized successfully. There's possibility that hw iommu > > initialization will fail, in this case kdump kernel will fail to boot > > if no any low memory is given. So we can't make assumption that system > > can boot always well without low memory. > > When we had crashk

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

initialization will fail, in this case kdump kernel will fail to boot if no any low memory is given. So we can't make assumption that system can boot always well without low memory. When we had crashkernel=,high working with auto low=40M. all system with crashkernel=,high worked. Now come one

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

case kdump kernel will fail to boot > if no any low memory is given. So we can't make assumption that system > can boot always well without low memory. When we had crashkernel=,high working with auto low=40M. all system with crashkernel=,high worked. Now come one model (assume it is 16 socket syst

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

ill can > > enable swiotlb suport. Then low memory is needed. > > Do you have whole bootlog? I don't understand why those system can not use > full iommu. BIOS problem or HW/silicon limitation? Sorry for late reply. This problem is reported by customers. They usulay don't like to m

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On 07/27/15 at 11:31am, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> #else > >> static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) > > No, you can not move the calling position for reserve_crashkernel_low(). > > old sequence: > > memblock_find_in_range for high > memblock_reserve for high > memblock_find_in_range for

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Dave Young wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c >> index 80f874b..36aeac3 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c >> @@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ static void __init >>

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:38:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Also, why was this syntax introduced in the first place? Why should the user > care?? > > We should only have a single crashkernel option, to enable it - and > everything > else should be figured out by the kernel, automatically. >

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

cceeds, but the reservation of the "low" > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is > because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large > systems for reasons. E.g it coul

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 04:41:00PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > Do you mean BIOS have that disabled with not exposing DMAR table ? > > kernel for RHEL 6 and RHEL7 have them enabled. > Also opensuse kernel have that enabled too. You still need to pass intel_iommu=on in the kernel command line to

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 04:41:00PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: Do you mean BIOS have that disabled with not exposing DMAR table ? kernel for RHEL 6 and RHEL7 have them enabled. Also opensuse kernel have that enabled too. You still need to pass intel_iommu=on in the kernel command line to enable

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:38:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: Also, why was this syntax introduced in the first place? Why should the user care?? We should only have a single crashkernel option, to enable it - and everything else should be figured out by the kernel, automatically. Any

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large systems for reasons. E.g it could be manually specified crashkernel low memory is too large to find in memblock

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Dave Young dyo...@redhat.com wrote: diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c index 80f874b..36aeac3 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c @@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ static void __init

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On 07/27/15 at 11:31am, Yinghai Lu wrote: #else static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) No, you can not move the calling position for reserve_crashkernel_low(). old sequence: memblock_find_in_range for high memblock_reserve for high memblock_find_in_range for low

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

. Then low memory is needed. Do you have whole bootlog? I don't understand why those system can not use full iommu. BIOS problem or HW/silicon limitation? Sorry for late reply. This problem is reported by customers. They usulay don't like to make these things public. While for those systems

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

to boot if no any low memory is given. So we can't make assumption that system can boot always well without low memory. When we had crashkernel=,high working with auto low=40M. all system with crashkernel=,high worked. Now come one model (assume it is 16 socket system), and it could use

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Baoquan He wrote: >> That commit should only be used to workaround some systems that >> have partial iommu support. > > Those big servers mostly has hardware iommu. But they still can > enable swiotlb suport. Then low memory is needed. Do y

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Minfei Huang wrote: > > Since low memory does not need for some machines, how about kexec does > not allocate low memory automatically, if cmdline does not specify the > option ",low". User shall know well, if they specify the cmdlin

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:22:53PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Baoquan He wrote: >> >> > Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing? >> >> No, it

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:22:53PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Baoquan He wrote: > > > Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing? > > No, it is not rare. > > All recent intel based systems with iommu support does

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:22:53PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Baoquan He b...@redhat.com wrote: Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing? No, it is not rare. All recent intel based systems with iommu support does not need low

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Minfei Huang mhu...@redhat.com wrote: Since low memory does not need for some machines, how about kexec does not allocate low memory automatically, if cmdline does not specify the option ,low. User shall know well, if they specify the cmdline with option ,high

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Joerg Roedel j...@8bytes.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:22:53PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Baoquan He b...@redhat.com wrote: Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing? No, it is not rare. All

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Baoquan He b...@redhat.com wrote: That commit should only be used to workaround some systems that have partial iommu support. Those big servers mostly has hardware iommu. But they still can enable swiotlb suport. Then low memory is needed. Do you have whole

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On 07/21/15 at 12:22pm, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Baoquan He wrote: > > > Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing? > > No, it is not rare. > > All recent intel based systems with iommu support does not need low. &g

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

mory user prefers crashkernel memory resereved above 4G since memory space above 4G could be huge while memory under 4G is very limited. So system with more than 1T physical memory should take high memory and with a very few low memory reservation, e.g about 100M. This is very cost-effective for those sy

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On 07/21/15 at 12:22pm, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Baoquan He wrote: > > > Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing? > > No, it is not rare. > > All recent intel based systems with iommu support does not need l

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Baoquan He wrote: > Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing? No, it is not rare. All recent intel based systems with iommu support does not need low. And those systems get punished by following patch: | com

Re: [regression 4.2-rc3] loop: xfstests xfs/073 deadlocked in low memory conditions

[CCing more people from a potentially affected fs - the reference to the email thread is: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm=143744398020147=2] On Tue 21-07-15 11:59:34, Dave Chinner wrote: > Hi Ming, > > With the recent merge of the loop device changes, I'm now seeing > XFS deadlock on my single

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On 07/21/15 at 04:23pm, Dave Young wrote: > > I think so. the reason why ,low is introduced is swiotlb or pci device > > need low memory when crashkernel is reserved above 4G. Low memory is > > necessary when ,high is specified unless user can make sure their > > machin

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

ed that when allocating crashkernel memory using > > > ",high" and ",low" syntax, there were cases where the reservation > > > of the "high" portion succeeds, but the reservation of the "low" > > > portion fails. Then kexec can load

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

d > everything > else should be figured out by the kernel, automatically. Presonally I do not current complicated params either, I hope we can have an elegant interface, but seems there's no better way to resolve the low memory only requirement for software tlb. > > Any other sub-

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

",low" syntax, there were cases where the reservation > > of the "high" portion succeeds, but the reservation of the "low" > > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This i

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

* Dave Young wrote: > Hi, Baoquan > > The interface was introduced by Yinghai, ccing him. Also, why was this syntax introduced in the first place? Why should the user care?? We should only have a single crashkernel option, to enable it - and everything else should be figured out by the

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

; portion succeeds, but the reservation of the "low" > portion fails. Then kexec can load kdump kernel successfully, but > the boot of kdump kernel fails as there's no low memory. This is > because allocation of low memory for kdump kernel can fail on large > systems for reasons

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On 07/21/15 at 12:22pm, Yinghai Lu wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Baoquan He b...@redhat.com wrote: Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing? No, it is not rare. All recent intel based systems with iommu support does not need low. And those systems

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

resereved above 4G since memory space above 4G could be huge while memory under 4G is very limited. So system with more than 1T physical memory should take high memory and with a very few low memory reservation, e.g about 100M. This is very cost-effective for those systems where pci memory space

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Baoquan He b...@redhat.com wrote: Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing? No, it is not rare. All recent intel based systems with iommu support does not need low. And those systems get punished by following patch: | commit

Re: [PATCH v2] Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if crashkernel low memory reserving failed

On 07/21/15 at 12:22pm, Yinghai Lu wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Baoquan He b...@redhat.com wrote: Maybe system which don't need low memory is rare, only for testing? No, it is not rare. All recent intel based systems with iommu support does not need low. Yeah, you are right

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >