linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 3/9] x86: kdump: use macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX in functions reserve_crashkernel[

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200918030112.GA3356@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:01:12 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To:     Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, james.morse@....com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bhe@...hat.com,
        corbet@....net, John.P.donnelly@...cle.com,
        prabhakar.pkin@...il.com, bhsharma@...hat.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, nsaenzjulienne@...e.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        guohanjun@...wei.com, xiexiuqi@...wei.com, huawei.libin@...wei.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 3/9] x86: kdump: use macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX in
 functions reserve_crashkernel[_low]()

On 09/07/20 at 09:47pm, Chen Zhou wrote:
> To make the functions reserve_crashkernel[_low]() as generic,
> replace some hard-coded numbers with macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index d7fd90c52dae..71a6a6e7ca5b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
>  	unsigned long total_low_mem;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	total_low_mem = memblock_mem_size(1UL << (32 - PAGE_SHIFT));
> +	total_low_mem = memblock_mem_size(CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX >> PAGE_SHIFT);

total_low_mem != CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX

>  
>  	/* crashkernel=Y,low */
>  	ret = parse_crashkernel_low(boot_command_line, total_low_mem, &low_size, &base);

The param total_low_mem is for dynamically change crash_size according
to system ram size.

Is above change a must for your arm64 patches?

> @@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
>  			return 0;
>  	}
>  
> -	low_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN, 1ULL << 32, low_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
> +	low_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_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));
> @@ -504,8 +504,9 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>  	if (!crash_base) {
>  		/*
>  		 * Set CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX upper bound for crash memory,
> -		 * crashkernel=x,high reserves memory over 4G, also allocates
> -		 * 256M extra low memory for DMA buffers and swiotlb.
> +		 * crashkernel=x,high reserves memory over CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX,
> +		 * also allocates 256M extra low memory for DMA buffers
> +		 * and swiotlb.
>  		 * But the extra memory is not required for all machines.
>  		 * So try low memory first and fall back to high memory
>  		 * unless "crashkernel=size[KMG],high" is specified.
> @@ -539,7 +540,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (crash_base >= (1ULL << 32) && reserve_crashkernel_low()) {
> +	if (crash_base >= CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX && reserve_crashkernel_low()) {
>  		memblock_free(crash_base, crash_size);
>  		return;
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>