[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190125134518.GA23595@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 21:45:18 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, yinghai@...nel.org,
vgoyal@...hat.com, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X
consistent with kaslr
> >
> > Dave Young sent the original post, and I just re-post it with commit log
>
> If he sent it, he should be the author I guess.
Just drop the line, but can change the credit to Chao Wang since he did
it initially.
But Chao does not work on kexec/kdump any more, and the email address is
outdated as well.
>
> > 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
>
> All that changelog info doesn't belong in the commit message ...
>
> > 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
> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> > Cc: x86@...nel.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > ---
>
> .... but here.
>
> > v6 -> v7: commit log improvement
> > 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
>
> Ok, so this is silly: we know at which physical address KASLR allocated
> the kernel so why aren't we querying that and seeing if there's enough
> room before it or after it to call memblock_find_in_range() on the
> bigger range?
Baoquan may have comments?
>
> Also, why is "high" dealt with separately and why isn't the code
> enforcing "high" if the normal reservation fails?
>
AFAIK, some people prefer to explictly reserve crash memory at high
region even if it is possible to reserve at low area. May because
<4G memory is limited on large server, they want to leave this for other
use.
Yinghai or Vivek should know more about the history, probably they can
recall some initial reason.
> The presence of high is requiring from our users to pay attention what
> to use when the kernel can do all that automatically. Looks like a UI
> fail to me.
>
> And look at all the flavors of crashkernel= :
>
> crashkernel=size[KMG][@offset[KMG]]
> crashkernel=range1:size1[,range2:size2,...][@offset]
> crashkernel=size[KMG],high
> crashkernel=size[KMG],low
>
> We couldn't do one so we made 4?!?!
>
> What for?
>
> Nowhere in that help text does it explain why a user would care about
> high or low or range or offset or the planets alignment...
>
> So what's up?
Good question, still it may be some historical reason, but it is good to
make them clear and rethink about it after long time.
I also want to understand, need dig the log more.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Thanks
Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists