[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6ef5ad2-13c1-ecac-e8d4-70b48561f249@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:19:18 +0800
From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
<x86@...nel.org>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
<kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@...edance.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Chen Zhou <dingguo.cz@...group.com>,
"John Donnelly" <John.p.donnelly@...cle.com>,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 2/5] arm64: kdump: introduce some macros for crash
kernel reservation
On 2022/2/21 11:22, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 02/14/22 at 02:22pm, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022/2/11 18:39, Baoquan He wrote:
>>> On 01/24/22 at 04:47pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>>> From: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>
>>>>
>>>> Introduce macro CRASH_ALIGN for alignment, macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX
>>>> for upper bound of low crash memory, macro CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX for
>>>> upper bound of high crash memory, use macros instead.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
>>>> Tested-by: John Donnelly <John.p.donnelly@...cle.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 11 ++++++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>>> index 90f276d46b93bc6..6c653a2c7cff052 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>>> @@ -65,6 +65,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(memstart_addr);
>>>> phys_addr_t arm64_dma_phys_limit __ro_after_init;
>>>>
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE
>>>> +/* Current arm64 boot protocol requires 2MB alignment */
>>>> +#define CRASH_ALIGN SZ_2M
>>>> +
>>>> +#define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX arm64_dma_phys_limit
>>>> +#define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE
>>>
>>> MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE is obvoiously a alloc flag for memblock
>>> allocator, I don't think it's appropriate to make HIGH_MAX get its value.
>>
>> Right, thanks.
>>
>>> You can make it as memblock.current_limit, or do not define it, but using
>>> MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE direclty in memblock_phys_alloc_range() with
>>> a code comment.
>>
>> This patch is not required at present. These macros are added to eliminate
>> differences to share code with x86.
>
> So this patch may not be needed in this series. It can be added in
> another post when you start to do the clean up and code unification
> among ARCHes, with my udnerstanding. At that time you can consider how
> to abstract the common code to handle the difference.
Yes, it should be merged with the v20 3/5.
>
> .
>
--
Regards,
Zhen Lei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists