Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 14:12:52 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Lukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@...sung.com>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Eric Miao <eric.miao@...dia.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@...esas.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] ARM: boot: Obtain start of physical memory from DTB

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:49:57PM +0200, Lukasz Stelmach wrote:
> It was <2020-05-19 wto 13:27>, when Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 02:20:25PM +0200, Lukasz Stelmach wrote:
> >> It was <2020-05-19 wto 12:43>, when Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 01:21:09PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:46 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> >>>> <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:44:17AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:54 AM Lukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@...sung.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> It was <2020-04-29 śro 10:21>, when Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Currently, the start address of physical memory is obtained by masking
> >>>>>>>> the program counter with a fixed mask of 0xf8000000.  This mask value
> >>>>>>>> was chosen as a balance between the requirements of different platforms.
> >>>>>>>> However, this does require that the start address of physical memory is
> >>>>>>>> a multiple of 128 MiB, precluding booting Linux on platforms where this
> >>>>>>>> requirement is not fulfilled.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Fix this limitation by obtaining the start address from the DTB instead,
> >>>>>>>> if available (either explicitly passed, or appended to the kernel).
> >>>>>>>> Fall back to the traditional method when needed.
> [...]
> >>>>>>> Apparently reading physical memory layout from DTB breaks crashdump
> >>>>>>> kernels. A crashdump kernel is loaded into a region of memory, that is
> >>>>>>> reserved in the original (i.e. to be crashed) kernel. The reserved
> >>>>>>> region is large enough for the crashdump kernel to run completely inside
> >>>>>>> it and don't modify anything outside it, just read and dump the remains
> >>>>>>> of the crashed kernel. Using the information from DTB makes the
> >>>>>>> decompressor place the kernel outside of the dedicated region.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The log below shows that a zImage and DTB are loaded at 0x18eb8000 and
> >>>>>>> 0x193f6000 (physical). The kernel is expected to run at 0x18008000, but
> >>>>>>> it is decompressed to 0x00008000 (see r4 reported before jumping from
> >>>>>>> within __enter_kernel). If I were to suggest something, there need to be
> >>>>>>> one more bit of information passed in the DTB telling the decompressor
> >>>>>>> to use the old masking technique to determain kernel address. It would
> >>>>>>> be set in the DTB loaded along with the crashdump kernel.
> [...]
> >>>>>> Describing "to use the old masking technique" sounds a bit hackish to me.
> >>>>>> I guess it cannot just restrict the /memory node to the reserved region,
> >>>>>> as the crashkernel needs to be able to dump the remains of the crashed
> >>>>>> kernel, which lie outside this region.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Correct.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> However, something under /chosen should work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yet another sticky plaster...
> >>>> 
> >>>> IMHO the old masking technique is the hacky solution covered by
> >>>> plasters.
> >>>
> >>> One line of code is not "covered by plasters".  There are no plasters.
> >>> It's a solution that works for 99.99% of people, unlike your approach
> >>> that has had a stream of issues over the last four months, and has
> >>> required many reworks of the code to fix each one.  That in itself
> >>> speaks volumes about the suitability of the approach.
> >> 
> >> As I have been working with kexec code (patches soon) I would like to
> >> defend the DT approach a bit. It allows to avoid zImage relocation when
> >> a decompressed kernel is larger than ~128MiB. In such case zImage isn't
> >> small either and moving it around takes some time.
> >
> > ... which is something that has been supported for a very long time,
> > before the days of DT.
> 
> How? If a decompressed kernel requires >128M and a bootloader would like
> to put a zImage high enough to *avoid* copying it once again, then the
> decompressor can't see any memory below the 128M window it starts in and
> can't decompress the kernel there.

Do you have such a large kernel?  It would be rather inefficient as
branch instructions could not be used; every function call would have
to be indirect.  The maximum is +/- 32MB for a branch.

> If we do not care about copying
> zImage, then, indeed, everything works fine as it is today. You are
> most probably right 99% doesn't require 128M kernel, but the case is
> IMHO obvious enough, that it should be adressed somehow.

If I have a kernel in excess of 4GB... "it should be addressed somehow"!

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC for 0.8m (est. 1762m) line in suburbia: sync at 13.1Mbps down 424kbps up

Powered by blists - more mailing lists