Message-ID: <03929ef5-7044-5610-c207-e497d3994f49@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:21:15 +0800
From:   chenzhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>
To:     John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@...cle.com>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
        Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>
CC:     Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        kexec mailing list <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar.pkin@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Prabhakar Kushwaha" <pkushwaha@...vell.com>,
        RuiRui Yang <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] support reserving crashkernel above 4G on arm64
 kdump


On 2020/6/19 10:32, John Donnelly wrote:
>
> On 6/4/20 12:01 PM, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
>> On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 01:17 +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:03 PM John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@...cle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:20 AM, chenzhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2020/6/3 19:47, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Chen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:12 PM John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@...cle.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2020, at 12:38 AM, Prabhakar Kushwaha <
>>>>>>>> prabhakar.pkin@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 3:29 AM John Donnelly <
>>>>>>>> john.p.donnelly@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi .  See below !
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2020, at 4:02 PM, Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:01 AM John Donnelly <
>>>>>>>>>> John.P.donnelly@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/20 7:02 AM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Chen,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:05 PM Chen Zhou <
>>>>>>>>>>>> chenzhou10@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch series enable reserving crashkernel above 4G in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arm64.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are following issues in arm64 kdump:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. We use crashkernel=X to reserve crashkernel below 4G,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which will fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when there is no enough low memory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Currently, crashkernel=Y@X can be used to reserve
>>>>>>>>>>>>> crashkernel above 4G,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this case, if swiotlb or DMA buffers are required,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> crash dump kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will boot failure because there is no low memory available
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for allocation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We are getting "warn_alloc" [1] warning during boot of kdump
>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>> with bootargs as [2] of primary kernel.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This error observed on ThunderX2  ARM64 platform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is observed with latest upstream tag (v5.7-rc3) with this
>>>>>>>>>>>> patch set
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2020-May/025128.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!LnTSARkCt0V0FozR0KmqooaH5ADtdXvs3mPdP3KRVqALmvSK2VmCkIPIhsaxbiIAAlzu$
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also **without** this patch-set
>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg806882.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!LnTSARkCt0V0FozR0KmqooaH5ADtdXvs3mPdP3KRVqALmvSK2VmCkIPIhsaxbjC6ujMA$
>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This issue comes whenever crashkernel memory is reserved
>>>>>>>>>>>> after 0xc000_0000.
>>>>>>>>>>>> More details discussed earlier in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg806882.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!LnTSARkCt0V0FozR0KmqooaH5ADtdXvs3mPdP3KRVqALmvSK2VmCkIPIhsaxbjC6ujMA$
>>    without
>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch-set is expected to solve similar kind of issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. low memory is only targeted for DMA, swiotlb; So above
>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>> observation should be considered/fixed. .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --pk
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.366695] DMI: Cavium Inc. Saber/Saber, BIOS
>>>>>>>>>>>> TX2-FW-Release-3.1-build_01-2803-g74253a541a mm/dd/yyyy
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.367696] NET: Registered protocol family 16
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.369973] swapper/0: page allocation failure: order:6,
>>>>>>>>>>>> mode:0x1(GFP_DMA), nodemask=(null),cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.369980] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.7.0-rc3+ #121
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.369981] Hardware name: Cavium Inc. Saber/Saber, BIOS
>>>>>>>>>>>> TX2-FW-Release-3.1-build_01-2803-g74253a541a mm/dd/yyyy
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.369984] Call trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.369989]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1f8
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.369991]  show_stack+0x20/0x30
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.369997]  dump_stack+0xc0/0x10c
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370001]  warn_alloc+0x10c/0x178
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370004]  __alloc_pages_slowpath.constprop.111+0xb10/0
>>>>>>>>>>>> xb50
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370006]  __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x2b4/0x300
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370008]  alloc_page_interleave+0x24/0x98
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370011]  alloc_pages_current+0xe4/0x108
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370017]  dma_atomic_pool_init+0x44/0x1a4
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370020]  do_one_initcall+0x54/0x228
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370027]  kernel_init_freeable+0x228/0x2cc
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370031]  kernel_init+0x1c/0x110
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370034]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370036] Mem-Info:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370064] active_anon:0 inactive_anon:0 isolated_anon:0
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370064]  active_file:0 inactive_file:0
>>>>>>>>>>>> isolated_file:0
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370064]  unevictable:0 dirty:0 writeback:0 unstable:0
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370064]  slab_reclaimable:34 slab_unreclaimable:4438
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370064]  mapped:0 shmem:0 pagetables:14 bounce:0
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370064]  free:1537719 free_pcp:219 free_cma:0
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370070] Node 0 active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB unevictable:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> isolated(anon):0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> isolated(file):0kB mapped:0kB dirty:0kB writeback:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> shmem:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> shmem_thp: 0kB shmem_pmdmapped: 0kB anon_thp: 0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> writeback_tmp:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> unstable:0kB all_unreclaimable? no
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370073] Node 1 active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB unevictable:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> isolated(anon):0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> isolated(file):0kB mapped:0kB dirty:0kB writeback:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> shmem:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> shmem_thp: 0kB shmem_pmdmapped: 0kB anon_thp: 0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> writeback_tmp:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> unstable:0kB all_unreclaimable? no
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370079] Node 0 DMA free:0kB min:0kB low:0kB high:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> reserved_highatomic:0KB active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB unevictable:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> writepending:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> present:128kB managed:0kB mlocked:0kB kernel_stack:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> pagetables:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> bounce:0kB free_pcp:0kB local_pcp:0kB free_cma:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370084] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 250 6063 6063
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370090] Node 0 DMA32 free:256000kB min:408kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> low:664kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> high:920kB reserved_highatomic:0KB active_anon:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> inactive_anon:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB unevictable:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> writepending:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> present:269700kB managed:256000kB mlocked:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel_stack:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> pagetables:0kB bounce:0kB free_pcp:0kB local_pcp:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> free_cma:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370094] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 5813 5813
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370100] Node 0 Normal free:5894876kB min:9552kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> low:15504kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> high:21456kB reserved_highatomic:0KB active_anon:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> inactive_anon:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB unevictable:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> writepending:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> present:8388608kB managed:5953112kB mlocked:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel_stack:21672kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> pagetables:56kB bounce:0kB free_pcp:876kB local_pcp:176kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> free_cma:0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370104] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370107] Node 0 DMA: 0*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0*128kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370113] Node 0 DMA32: 0*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0*64kB 0*128kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 1*2048kB (M) 62*4096kB (M) =
>>>>>>>>>>>> 256000kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370119] Node 0 Normal: 2*4kB (M) 3*8kB (ME) 2*16kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> (UE) 3*32kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> (UM) 1*64kB (U) 2*128kB (M) 2*256kB (ME) 3*512kB (ME)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3*1024kB (ME)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3*2048kB (UME) 1436*4096kB (M) = 5893600kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370129] Node 0 hugepages_total=0 hugepages_free=0
>>>>>>>>>>>> hugepages_surp=0 hugepages_size=1048576kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370130] 0 total pagecache pages
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370132] 0 pages in swap cache
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370134] Swap cache stats: add 0, delete 0, find 0/0
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370135] Free swap  = 0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370136] Total swap = 0kB
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370137] 2164609 pages RAM
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370139] 0 pages HighMem/MovableOnly
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370140] 612331 pages reserved
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370141] 0 pages hwpoisoned
>>>>>>>>>>>> [   30.370143] DMA: failed to allocate 256 KiB pool for
>>>>>>>>>>>> atomic
>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent allocation
>>>>>>>>>>> During my testing I saw the same error and Chen's  solution
>>>>>>>>>>> corrected it .
>>>>>>>>>> Which combination you are using on your side? I am using
>>>>>>>>>> Prabhakar's
>>>>>>>>>> suggested environment and can reproduce the issue
>>>>>>>>>> with or without Chen's crashkernel support above 4G patchset.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am also using a ThunderX2 platform with latest makedumpfile
>>>>>>>>>> code and
>>>>>>>>>> kexec-tools (with the suggested patch
>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2020-May/025128.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!J6lUig58-Gw6TKZnEEYzEeSU36T-1SqlB1kImU00xtX_lss5Tx-JbUmLE9TJC3foXBLg$
>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
>>>>>>>>> I did this activity 5 months ago and I have moved on to other
>>>>>>>>> activities. My DMA failures were related to PCI devices that could
>>>>>>>>> not be enumerated because  low-DMA space was not  available when
>>>>>>>>> crashkernel was moved above 4G; I don’t recall the exact platform.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For this failure ,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DMA: failed to allocate 256 KiB pool for atomic
>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent allocation
>>>>>>>>> Is due to :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3618082c
>>>>>>>>> ("arm64 use both ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32")
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With the introduction of ZONE_DMA to support the Raspberry DMA
>>>>>>>>> region below 1G, the crashkernel is placed in the upper 4G
>>>>>>>>> ZONE_DMA_32 region. Since the crashkernel does not have access
>>>>>>>>> to the ZONE_DMA region, it prints out call trace during bootup.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is due to having this CONFIG item  ON  :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CONFIG_ZONE_DMA=y
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Turning off ZONE_DMA fixes a issue and Raspberry PI 4 will
>>>>>>>>> use the device tree to specify memory below 1G.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Disabling ZONE_DMA is temporary solution.  We may need proper
>>>>>>>> solution
>>>>>>> Perhaps the Raspberry platform configuration dependencies need
>>>>>>> separated  from “server class” Arm  equipment ?  Or auto-configured on
>>>>>>> boot ?  Consult an expert ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to see Chen’s feature added , perhaps as
>>>>>>>>> EXPERIMENTAL,  so we can get some configuration testing done on
>>>>>>>>> it.   It corrects having a DMA zone in low memory while crash-
>>>>>>>>> kernel is above 4GB.  This has been going on for a year now.
>>>>>>>> I will also like this patch to be added in Linux as early as
>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Issue mentioned by me happens with or without this patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This patch-set can consider fixing because it uses low memory for
>>>>>>>> DMA
>>>>>>>> & swiotlb only.
>>>>>>>> We can consider restricting crashkernel within the required range
>>>>>>>> like below
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
>>>>>>>> index 7f9e5a6dc48c..bd67b90d35bd 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
>>>>>>>>                        return 0;
>>>>>>>>        }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -       low_base = memblock_find_in_range(0, 1ULL << 32, low_size,
>>>>>>>> CRASH_ALIGN);
>>>>>>>> +       low_base = memblock_find_in_range(0,0xc0000000, low_size,
>>>>>>>> CRASH_ALIGN);
>>>>>>>>        if (!low_base) {
>>>>>>>>                pr_err("Cannot reserve %ldMB crashkernel low memory,
>>>>>>>> please try smaller size.\n",
>>>>>>>>                       (unsigned long)(low_size >> 20));
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I suspect  0xc0000000  would need to be a CONFIG item  and not
>>>>>>> hard-coded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> if you consider this as valid change,  can you please incorporate as
>>>>>> part of your patch-set.
>>>>> After commit 1a8e1cef7 ("arm64: use both ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32")，the 0-
>>>>> 4G memory is splited
>>>>> to DMA [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000003fffffff] and DMA32 [mem
>>>>> 0x0000000040000000-0x00000000ffffffff] on arm64.
>>>>>
>>>>>  From the above discussion, on your platform, the low crashkernel fall in
>>>>> DMA32 region, but your environment needs to access DMA
>>>>> region, so there is the call trace.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a question, why do you choose 0xc0000000 here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, this is common code, we also need to consider about x86.
>>>>>
>>>>   + nsaenzjulienne@...e.de
>> Thanks for adding me to the conversation, and sorry for the headaches.
>>
>>>>    Exactly .  This is why it needs to be a CONFIG option for  Raspberry
>>>> ..,  or device tree option.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    We could revert 1a8e1cef7 since it broke  Arm kdump too.
>>> Well, unfortunately the patch for commit 1a8e1cef7603 ("arm64: use
>>> both ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32") was not Cc'ed to the kexec mailing
>>> list, thus we couldn't get many eyes on it for a thorough review from
>>> kexec/kdump p-o-v.
>>>
>>> Also we historically never had distinction in common arch code on the
>>> basis of the intended end use-case: embedded, server or automotive, so
>>> I am not sure introducing a Raspberry specific CONFIG option would be
>>> a good idea.
>> +1
>>
>>  From the distros perspective it's very important to keep a single kernel image.
>>
>>> So, rather than reverting the patch, we can look at addressing the
>>> same properly this time - especially from a kdump p-o-v.
>>> This issue has been reported by some Red Hat arm64 partners with
>>> upstream kernel also and as we have noticed in the past as well,
>>> hardcoding the placement of the crashkernel base address (unless the
>>> base address is specified by a crashkernel=X@Y like bootargs) is also
>>> not a portable suggestion.
>>>
>>> I am working on a possible fix and will have more updates on the same
>>> in a day-or-two.
>> Please keep me in the loop, we've also had issues pointing to this reported by
>> SUSE partners. I can do some testing both on the RPi4 and on big servers that
>> need huge crashkernel sizes.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nicolas
>>
>
>   Hi
>
>   Has there been any progress on this ? It appears we are stalled because Nicolas's  and Chen's changes are not compatible . One is needed for RPi4 and the other for server class equipment.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
Hi all,

Thanks for John's reminder.
commit 1a8e1cef7 ("arm64: use both ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32") broken the arm64 kdump,
there is a simple solution similar to pk's to fix this, see below:

In crash dump kernel, if the peripherals need to use ZONE_DMA like the the Raspberry Pi 4, based on
my solution, we adjusted the memory range in memblock_find_in_range.

diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
index a7580d291c37..eb16c6d54b73 100644
--- a/kernel/crash_core.c
+++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
@@ -320,6 +320,7 @@ int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
        unsigned long long base, low_base = 0, low_size = 0;
        unsigned long total_low_mem;
        int ret;
+       phys_addr_t crash_max = 1ULL << 32;
 
        total_low_mem = memblock_mem_size(1UL << (32 - PAGE_SHIFT));
 
@@ -352,7 +353,12 @@ int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
                        return 0;
        }
 
-       low_base = memblock_find_in_range(0, 1ULL << 32, low_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
+       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA)) {
+               crash_max = arm64_dma_phys_limit;
+       }
+#endif
+       low_base = memblock_find_in_range(0, crash_max, low_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
        if (!low_base) {
                pr_err("Cannot reserve %ldMB crashkernel low memory, please try smaller size.\n",
                       (unsigned long)(low_size >> 20));


Thanks,
Chen Zhou

>
> .
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists