[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8206281c-c4e6-278a-899b-27cf9affd0da@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 20:23:50 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, yinghai@...nel.org,
vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X
consistent with kaslr
Hi,
Just fix a few of the commit log comments...
On 1/13/19 7:15 PM, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> People reported a bug on a high end server with many pcie devices, where
> kernel bootup with crashkernel=384M, and kaslr is enabled. Even
> though we still see much memory under 896 MB, the finding still failed
> intermittently. Because currently we can only find region under 896 MB,
> if w/0 ',high' specified. Then KASLR breaks 896 MB into several parts
if w/o
or preferably:
if without
> randomly, and crashkernel reservation need be aligned to 128 MB, that's
> why failure is found. It raises confusion to the end user that sometimes
> crashkernel=X works while sometimes fails.
> If want to make it succeed, customer can change kernel option to
> "crashkernel=384M, high". Just this give "crashkernel=xx@yy" a very
no space? just
"crashkernel=384M,high"
> limited space to behave even though its grammer looks more generic.
grammar
> And we can't answer questions raised from customer that confidently:
> 1) why it doesn't succeed to reserve 896 MB;
> 2) what's wrong with memory region under 4G;
> 3) why I have to add ',high', I only require 384 MB, not 3840 MB.
> This patch tries to get memory region from 896 MB firstly, then [896MB,4G],
> finally above 4G.
> Dave Young sent the original post, and I just re-post it with commit log
> improvement as his requirement.
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2017-October/019571.html
> There was an old discussion below (previously posted by Chao Wang):
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/15/601
>
> Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
> Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
> Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: yinghai@...nel.org,
> Cc: vgoyal@...hat.com
> ---
> v5 -> v6
> discard bottom-up allocation, just repost dyoung's original patch with commit log improved
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index 3d872a5..fa62c81 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -551,6 +551,22 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> high ? CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX
> : CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX,
> crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> + /*
> + * crashkernel=X reserve below 896M fails? Try below 4G
> + */
> + if (!high && !crash_base)
> + crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN,
> + (1ULL << 32),
> + crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
> + /*
> + * crashkernel=X reserve below 4G fails? Try MAXMEM
> + */
> + if (!high && !crash_base)
> + crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN,
> + CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX,
> + crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
> +#endif
> if (!crash_base) {
> pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
> return;
>
ciao.
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists