The lower bounds of crash kernel reservation and crash kernel low
reservation are different, use the consistent value CRASH_ALIGN.
Suggested-by: Dave Young <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chen Zhou <[email protected]>
Tested-by: John Donnelly <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
index da769845597d..27470479e4a3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
@@ -439,7 +439,8 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
return 0;
}
- low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, 0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
+ low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
+ CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
if (!low_base) {
pr_err("Cannot reserve %ldMB crashkernel low memory, please try smaller size.\n",
(unsigned long)(low_size >> 20));
--
2.20.1
On 01/30/21 at 03:10pm, Chen Zhou wrote:
> The lower bounds of crash kernel reservation and crash kernel low
> reservation are different, use the consistent value CRASH_ALIGN.
>
> Suggested-by: Dave Young <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Zhou <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: John Donnelly <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index da769845597d..27470479e4a3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -439,7 +439,8 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> - low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, 0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
> + low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
> + CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
Acked-by: Baoquan He <[email protected]>
> if (!low_base) {
> pr_err("Cannot reserve %ldMB crashkernel low memory, please try smaller size.\n",
> (unsigned long)(low_size >> 20));
> --
> 2.20.1
>
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 03:10:16PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index da769845597d..27470479e4a3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -439,7 +439,8 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> - low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, 0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
> + low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
> + CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
> if (!low_base) {
> pr_err("Cannot reserve %ldMB crashkernel low memory, please try smaller size.\n",
> (unsigned long)(low_size >> 20));
Is there any reason why the lower bound can't be 0 in all low cases
here? (Sorry if it's been already discussed, I lost track)
--
Catalin
On 02/24/21 at 02:35pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 03:10:16PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > index da769845597d..27470479e4a3 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > @@ -439,7 +439,8 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > - low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, 0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
> > + low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
> > + CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
> > if (!low_base) {
> > pr_err("Cannot reserve %ldMB crashkernel low memory, please try smaller size.\n",
> > (unsigned long)(low_size >> 20));
>
> Is there any reason why the lower bound can't be 0 in all low cases
> here? (Sorry if it's been already discussed, I lost track)
Seems like a good question.
This reserve_crashkernel_low(), paired with reserve_crashkernel_high(), is
used to reserve memory under 4G so that kdump kernel owns memory for dma
buffer allocation. In that case, kernel usually is loaded in high
memory. In x86_64, kernel loading need be aligned to 16M because of
CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START, please see commit 32105f7fd8faa7b ("x86: find
offset for crashkernel reservation automatically"). But for crashkernel
low memory, there seems to be no reason to ask for 16M alignment, if
it's taken as dma buffer memory.
So we can make a different alignment for low memory only, e.g 2M. But
16M alignment consistent with crashkernel,high is also fine to me. The
only affect is smaller alignment can increase the possibility of
crashkernel low reservation.
Thanks
Baoquan
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 03:08:46PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 02/24/21 at 02:35pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 03:10:16PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > > index da769845597d..27470479e4a3 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > > @@ -439,7 +439,8 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, 0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
> > > + low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
> > > + CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
> > > if (!low_base) {
> > > pr_err("Cannot reserve %ldMB crashkernel low memory, please try smaller size.\n",
> > > (unsigned long)(low_size >> 20));
> >
> > Is there any reason why the lower bound can't be 0 in all low cases
> > here? (Sorry if it's been already discussed, I lost track)
>
> Seems like a good question.
>
> This reserve_crashkernel_low(), paired with reserve_crashkernel_high(), is
> used to reserve memory under 4G so that kdump kernel owns memory for dma
> buffer allocation. In that case, kernel usually is loaded in high
> memory. In x86_64, kernel loading need be aligned to 16M because of
> CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START, please see commit 32105f7fd8faa7b ("x86: find
> offset for crashkernel reservation automatically"). But for crashkernel
> low memory, there seems to be no reason to ask for 16M alignment, if
> it's taken as dma buffer memory.
>
> So we can make a different alignment for low memory only, e.g 2M. But
> 16M alignment consistent with crashkernel,high is also fine to me. The
> only affect is smaller alignment can increase the possibility of
> crashkernel low reservation.
I don't mind the 16M alignment in both low and high base. But is there
any reason that the lower bound (third argument) cannot be 0 in both
reserve_crashkernel() (the low attempt) and reserve_crashkernel_low()
cases? The comment in reserve_crashkernel() only talks about the 4G
upper bound but not why we need a 16M lower bound.
--
Catalin
On 02/25/21 at 02:42pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 03:08:46PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 02/24/21 at 02:35pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 03:10:16PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > > > index da769845597d..27470479e4a3 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > > > @@ -439,7 +439,8 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, 0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
> > > > + low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
> > > > + CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
> > > > if (!low_base) {
> > > > pr_err("Cannot reserve %ldMB crashkernel low memory, please try smaller size.\n",
> > > > (unsigned long)(low_size >> 20));
> > >
> > > Is there any reason why the lower bound can't be 0 in all low cases
> > > here? (Sorry if it's been already discussed, I lost track)
> >
> > Seems like a good question.
> >
> > This reserve_crashkernel_low(), paired with reserve_crashkernel_high(), is
> > used to reserve memory under 4G so that kdump kernel owns memory for dma
> > buffer allocation. In that case, kernel usually is loaded in high
> > memory. In x86_64, kernel loading need be aligned to 16M because of
> > CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START, please see commit 32105f7fd8faa7b ("x86: find
> > offset for crashkernel reservation automatically"). But for crashkernel
> > low memory, there seems to be no reason to ask for 16M alignment, if
> > it's taken as dma buffer memory.
> >
> > So we can make a different alignment for low memory only, e.g 2M. But
> > 16M alignment consistent with crashkernel,high is also fine to me. The
> > only affect is smaller alignment can increase the possibility of
> > crashkernel low reservation.
>
> I don't mind the 16M alignment in both low and high base. But is there
> any reason that the lower bound (third argument) cannot be 0 in both
> reserve_crashkernel() (the low attempt) and reserve_crashkernel_low()
> cases? The comment in reserve_crashkernel() only talks about the 4G
> upper bound but not why we need a 16M lower bound.
Ah, sorry, I must have mixed this one with the alignment of fixed
memory region reservation in patch 1 when considering comments.
Hmm, in x86 we always have memory reserved in low 1M, lower bound
being 0 or 16M (kernel alignment) doesn't make difference on crashkernel
low reservation. But for crashkernel reservation, the reason should be
kernel loading alignment being 16M, please see commit 32105f7fd8faa7b
("x86: find offset for crashkernel reservation automatically").
So, for crashkernel low, keeping lower bound as 0 looks good to me, the
only reason is just as patch log tells. And it can skip the unnecessary
memblock searching under 16M since it will always fail, even though it
won't matter much. Or changing it to CRASH_ALIGN as this patch is doing,
and adding code comment, is also fine to me.
Thanks
Baoquan
On 2021/2/25 23:44, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 02/25/21 at 02:42pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 03:08:46PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>>> On 02/24/21 at 02:35pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 03:10:16PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
>>>>> index da769845597d..27470479e4a3 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
>>>>> @@ -439,7 +439,8 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> - low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, 0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
>>>>> + low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
>>>>> + CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
>>>>> if (!low_base) {
>>>>> pr_err("Cannot reserve %ldMB crashkernel low memory, please try smaller size.\n",
>>>>> (unsigned long)(low_size >> 20));
>>>> Is there any reason why the lower bound can't be 0 in all low cases
>>>> here? (Sorry if it's been already discussed, I lost track)
>>> Seems like a good question.
>>>
>>> This reserve_crashkernel_low(), paired with reserve_crashkernel_high(), is
>>> used to reserve memory under 4G so that kdump kernel owns memory for dma
>>> buffer allocation. In that case, kernel usually is loaded in high
>>> memory. In x86_64, kernel loading need be aligned to 16M because of
>>> CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START, please see commit 32105f7fd8faa7b ("x86: find
>>> offset for crashkernel reservation automatically"). But for crashkernel
>>> low memory, there seems to be no reason to ask for 16M alignment, if
>>> it's taken as dma buffer memory.
>>>
>>> So we can make a different alignment for low memory only, e.g 2M. But
>>> 16M alignment consistent with crashkernel,high is also fine to me. The
>>> only affect is smaller alignment can increase the possibility of
>>> crashkernel low reservation.
>> I don't mind the 16M alignment in both low and high base. But is there
>> any reason that the lower bound (third argument) cannot be 0 in both
>> reserve_crashkernel() (the low attempt) and reserve_crashkernel_low()
>> cases? The comment in reserve_crashkernel() only talks about the 4G
>> upper bound but not why we need a 16M lower bound.
> Ah, sorry, I must have mixed this one with the alignment of fixed
> memory region reservation in patch 1 when considering comments.
>
> Hmm, in x86 we always have memory reserved in low 1M, lower bound
> being 0 or 16M (kernel alignment) doesn't make difference on crashkernel
> low reservation. But for crashkernel reservation, the reason should be
> kernel loading alignment being 16M, please see commit 32105f7fd8faa7b
> ("x86: find offset for crashkernel reservation automatically").
Sorry, i didn't mention in the commit message about this.
We discussed about this and the CRASH_ALIGN sounds better, so just use CRASH_ALIGN.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/4/82
Thanks,
Chen Zhou
>
> So, for crashkernel low, keeping lower bound as 0 looks good to me, the
> only reason is just as patch log tells. And it can skip the unnecessary
> memblock searching under 16M since it will always fail, even though it
> won't matter much. Or changing it to CRASH_ALIGN as this patch is doing,
> and adding code comment, is also fine to me.
>
> Thanks
> Baoquan
>
> .
>