[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACPcB9d7kU1TYaF-g2GH16Wg=hrQu71sGDoC8uMFFMc6oW_duQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 17:34:35 +0800
From: Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>
To: Saeed Mirzamohammadi <saeed.mirzamohammadi@...cle.com>
Cc: John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@...cle.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@...meeyes.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel/crash_core.c - Add crashkernel=auto for x86
and ARM
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 4:28 AM Saeed Mirzamohammadi
<saeed.mirzamohammadi@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> And I think crashkernel=auto could be used as an indicator that user
> want the kernel to control the crashkernel size, so some further work
> could be done to adjust the crashkernel more accordingly. eg. when
> memory encryption is enabled, increase the crashkernel value for the
> auto estimation, as it's known to consume more crashkernel memory.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion! I tried to keep it simple and leave it to the user to change Kconfig in case a different range is needed. Based on experience, these ranges work well for most of the regular cases.
Yes, I think the current implementation is a very good start.
There are some use cases, where kernel is expected to reserve more memory, like:
- when memory encryption is enabled, an extra swiotlb size of memory
should be reserved
- on pcc, fadump will expect more memory to be reserved
I believe there are a lot more cases like these.
I tried to come up with some patches to let the kernel reserve more
memory automatically, when such conditions are detected, but changing
the crashkernel= specified value is really weird.
But if we have a crashkernel=auto, then kernel automatically reserve
more memory will make sense.
> But why not make it arch-independent? This crashkernel=auto idea
> should simply work with every arch.
>
>
> Thanks! I’ll be making it arch-independent in the v2 patch.
>
>
> #include <asm/page.h>
> #include <asm/sections.h>
> @@ -41,6 +42,15 @@ static int __init parse_crashkernel_mem(char *cmdline,
> unsigned long long *crash_base)
> {
> char *cur = cmdline, *tmp;
> + unsigned long long total_mem = system_ram;
> +
> + /*
> + * Firmware sometimes reserves some memory regions for it's own use.
> + * so we get less than actual system memory size.
> + * Workaround this by round up the total size to 128M which is
> + * enough for most test cases.
> + */
> + total_mem = roundup(total_mem, SZ_128M);
>
>
> I think this rounding may be better moved to the arch specified part
> where parse_crashkernel is called?
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. Could you please elaborate why do we need to do that?
Every arch gets their total memory value using different methods,
(just check every parse_crashkernel call, and the system_ram param is
filled in many different ways), so I'm really not sure if this
rounding is always suitable.
>
> Thanks,
> Saeed
>
>
--
Best Regards,
Kairui Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists