Currently vmcore only supports reading, this patch series is an RFC
to add writing support to vmcore. It's x86_64 only yet, I'll add other
architecture later if there is no problem with this idea.
My purpose of adding writing support is to reuse the crashed kernel's
old memory in kdump kernel, reduce kdump memory pressure, and
allow kdump to run with a smaller crashkernel reservation.
This is doable because in most cases, after kernel panic, user only
interested in the crashed kernel itself, and userspace/cache/free
memory pages are not dumped. `makedumpfile` is widely used to skip
these pages. Kernel pages usually only take a small part of
the whole old memory. So there will be many reusable pages.
By adding writing support, userspace then can use these pages as a fast
and temporary storage. This helps reduce memory pressure in many ways.
For example, I've written a POC program based on this, it will find
the reusable pages, and creates an NBD device which maps to these pages.
The NBD device can then be used as swap, or to hold some temp files
which previouly live in RAM.
The link of the POC tool: https://github.com/ryncsn/kdumpd
I tested it on x86_64 on latest Fedora by using it as swap with
following step in kdump kernel:
1. Install this tool in kdump initramfs
2. Execute following command in kdump:
/sbin/modprobe nbd nbds_max=1
/bin/kdumpd &
/sbin/mkswap /dev/nbd0
/sbin/swapon /dev/nbd0
3. Observe the swap is being used:
SwapTotal: 131068 kB
SwapFree: 121852 kB
It helped to reduce the crashkernel from 168M to 110M for a successful
kdump run over NFSv3. There are still many workitems that could be done
based on this idea, eg. move the initramfs content to the old memory,
which may help reduce another ~10-20M of memory.
It's have been a long time issue that kdump suffers from OOM issue
with limited crashkernel memory. So reusing old memory could be very
helpful.
This method have it's limitation:
- Swap only works for userspace. But kdump userspace is a major memory
consumer, so in general this should be helpful enough.
- For users who want to dump the whole memory area, this won't help as
there is no reusable page.
I've tried other ways to improve the crashkernel value, eg.
- Reserve some smaller memory segments in first kernel for crashkernel: It's
only a suppliment of the default crashkernel reservation and only make
crashkernel value more adjustable, still not solving the real problem.
- Reuse old memory, but hotplug chunk of reusable old memory into
kdump kernel's memory:
It's hard to find large chunk of continuous memory, especially on
systems with heavy workload, the reusable regions could be very
fragmental. So it can only hotplug small fragments of memories,
which looks hackish, and may have a high page table overhead.
- Implement the old memory based based block device as a kernel
module. It doesn't looks good to have a module for this sole
usage and it don't have much performance/implementation advantage
compared to this RFC.
Besides, keeping all the complex logic of parsing reusing old memory
logic in userspace seems a better idea.
And as a plus, this could make it more doable and reasonable to
have n crashkernel=auto param. If there is a swap, then userspace
will have less memory pressure. crashkernel=auto can focus on the
kernel usage.
Kairui Song (3):
vmcore: simplify read_from_olemem
vmcore: Add interface to write to old mem
x86_64: implement copy_to_oldmem_page
arch/x86/kernel/crash_dump_64.c | 49 ++++++++--
fs/proc/vmcore.c | 154 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
include/linux/crash_dump.h | 18 +++-
3 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
--
2.26.2
Simplify the code logic, also helps reduce object size and stack usage.
Stack usage:
Before: fs/proc/vmcore.c:106:9:read_from_oldmem.part.0 80 static
fs/proc/vmcore.c:106:9:read_from_oldmem 16 static
After: fs/proc/vmcore.c:106:9:read_from_oldmem 80 static
Size of vmcore.o:
text data bss dec hex filename
Before: 7677 109 88 7874 1ec2 fs/proc/vmcore.o
After: 7669 109 88 7866 1eba fs/proc/vmcore.o
Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <[email protected]>
---
fs/proc/vmcore.c | 27 ++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/proc/vmcore.c b/fs/proc/vmcore.c
index c3a345c28a93..124c2066f3e5 100644
--- a/fs/proc/vmcore.c
+++ b/fs/proc/vmcore.c
@@ -108,25 +108,19 @@ ssize_t read_from_oldmem(char *buf, size_t count,
bool encrypted)
{
unsigned long pfn, offset;
- size_t nr_bytes;
- ssize_t read = 0, tmp;
+ size_t nr_bytes, to_copy = count;
+ ssize_t tmp;
- if (!count)
- return 0;
-
- offset = (unsigned long)(*ppos % PAGE_SIZE);
+ offset = (unsigned long)(*ppos & (PAGE_SIZE - 1));
pfn = (unsigned long)(*ppos / PAGE_SIZE);
- do {
- if (count > (PAGE_SIZE - offset))
- nr_bytes = PAGE_SIZE - offset;
- else
- nr_bytes = count;
+ while (to_copy) {
+ nr_bytes = min(to_copy, PAGE_SIZE - offset);
/* If pfn is not ram, return zeros for sparse dump files */
- if (pfn_is_ram(pfn) == 0)
+ if (pfn_is_ram(pfn) == 0) {
memset(buf, 0, nr_bytes);
- else {
+ } else {
if (encrypted)
tmp = copy_oldmem_page_encrypted(pfn, buf,
nr_bytes,
@@ -140,14 +134,13 @@ ssize_t read_from_oldmem(char *buf, size_t count,
return tmp;
}
*ppos += nr_bytes;
- count -= nr_bytes;
buf += nr_bytes;
- read += nr_bytes;
+ to_copy -= nr_bytes;
++pfn;
offset = 0;
- } while (count);
+ }
- return read;
+ return count;
}
/*
--
2.26.2
Previous commit introduced writing support for vmcore, it requires
per-architecture implementation for the writing function.
Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/crash_dump_64.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/crash_dump_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/crash_dump_64.c
index 045e82e8945b..ec80da75b287 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/crash_dump_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/crash_dump_64.c
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
static ssize_t __copy_oldmem_page(unsigned long pfn, char *buf, size_t csize,
unsigned long offset, int userbuf,
- bool encrypted)
+ bool encrypted, bool is_write)
{
void *vaddr;
@@ -28,13 +28,25 @@ static ssize_t __copy_oldmem_page(unsigned long pfn, char *buf, size_t csize,
if (!vaddr)
return -ENOMEM;
- if (userbuf) {
- if (copy_to_user((void __user *)buf, vaddr + offset, csize)) {
- iounmap((void __iomem *)vaddr);
- return -EFAULT;
+ if (is_write) {
+ if (userbuf) {
+ if (copy_from_user(vaddr + offset, (void __user *)buf, csize)) {
+ iounmap((void __iomem *)vaddr);
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+ } else {
+ memcpy(vaddr + offset, buf, csize);
}
- } else
- memcpy(buf, vaddr + offset, csize);
+ } else {
+ if (userbuf) {
+ if (copy_to_user((void __user *)buf, vaddr + offset, csize)) {
+ iounmap((void __iomem *)vaddr);
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+ } else {
+ memcpy(buf, vaddr + offset, csize);
+ }
+ }
set_iounmap_nonlazy();
iounmap((void __iomem *)vaddr);
@@ -57,7 +69,7 @@ static ssize_t __copy_oldmem_page(unsigned long pfn, char *buf, size_t csize,
ssize_t copy_oldmem_page(unsigned long pfn, char *buf, size_t csize,
unsigned long offset, int userbuf)
{
- return __copy_oldmem_page(pfn, buf, csize, offset, userbuf, false);
+ return __copy_oldmem_page(pfn, buf, csize, offset, userbuf, false, false);
}
/**
@@ -68,7 +80,26 @@ ssize_t copy_oldmem_page(unsigned long pfn, char *buf, size_t csize,
ssize_t copy_oldmem_page_encrypted(unsigned long pfn, char *buf, size_t csize,
unsigned long offset, int userbuf)
{
- return __copy_oldmem_page(pfn, buf, csize, offset, userbuf, true);
+ return __copy_oldmem_page(pfn, buf, csize, offset, userbuf, true, false);
+}
+
+/**
+ * copy_to_oldmem_page - similar to copy_oldmem_page but in opposite direction.
+ */
+ssize_t copy_to_oldmem_page(unsigned long pfn, char *src, size_t csize,
+ unsigned long offset, int userbuf)
+{
+ return __copy_oldmem_page(pfn, src, csize, offset, userbuf, false, true);
+}
+
+/**
+ * copy_to_oldmem_page_encrypted - similar to copy_oldmem_page_encrypted but
+ * in opposite direction.
+ */
+ssize_t copy_to_oldmem_page_encrypted(unsigned long pfn, char *src, size_t csize,
+ unsigned long offset, int userbuf)
+{
+ return __copy_oldmem_page(pfn, src, csize, offset, userbuf, true, true);
}
ssize_t elfcorehdr_read(char *buf, size_t count, u64 *ppos)
--
2.26.2
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:04 PM Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Kairui Song <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Currently vmcore only supports reading, this patch series is an RFC
> > to add writing support to vmcore. It's x86_64 only yet, I'll add other
> > architecture later if there is no problem with this idea.
> >
> > My purpose of adding writing support is to reuse the crashed kernel's
> > old memory in kdump kernel, reduce kdump memory pressure, and
> > allow kdump to run with a smaller crashkernel reservation.
> >
> > This is doable because in most cases, after kernel panic, user only
> > interested in the crashed kernel itself, and userspace/cache/free
> > memory pages are not dumped. `makedumpfile` is widely used to skip
> > these pages. Kernel pages usually only take a small part of
> > the whole old memory. So there will be many reusable pages.
> >
> > By adding writing support, userspace then can use these pages as a fast
> > and temporary storage. This helps reduce memory pressure in many ways.
> >
> > For example, I've written a POC program based on this, it will find
> > the reusable pages, and creates an NBD device which maps to these pages.
> > The NBD device can then be used as swap, or to hold some temp files
> > which previouly live in RAM.
> >
> > The link of the POC tool: https://github.com/ryncsn/kdumpd
>
> A couple of thoughts.
> 1) Unless I am completely mistaken treating this as a exercise in
> memory hotplug would be much simpler.
>
> AKA just plug in the memory that is not needed as part of the kdump.
>
> I see below that you have problems doing this because
> of fragmentation. I still think hotplug is doable using some
> kind of fragmented memory zone.
>
> 2) The purpose of the memory reservation is because hardware is
> still potentially running agains the memory of the old kernel.
>
> By the time we have brought up a new kernel enough of the hardware
> may have been reinitialized that we don't have to worry about
> hardware randomly dma'ing into the memory used by the old kernel.
>
> With IOMMUs and care we may be able to guarantee for some machine
> configurations it is impossible for DMA to come from some piece of
> hardware that is present but the kernel does not have a driver
> loaded for.\
>
> I really do not like this approach because it is fundamentlly doing the
> wrong thing. Adding write support to read-only drivers. I do not see
> anywhere that you even mentioned the hard problem and the reason we
> reserve memory in the first place. Hardware spontaneously DMA'ing onto
> it.
>
That POC tool looks ugly for now as it only a draft to prove this
works, sorry about it.
For the patch, yes, it is expecting IOMMU to lower the chance of
potential DMA issue, and expecting DMA will not hit userspace/free
page, or at least won't override a massive amount of reusable old
memory. And I thought about some solutions for the potential DMA
issue.
As old memories are used as a block device, which is proxied by
userspace, so upon each IO, the userspace tool could do an integrity
check of the corresponding data stored in old mem, and keep multiple
copies of the data. (eg. use 512M of old memory to hold a 128M block
device). These copies will be kept far away from each other regarding
the physical memory location. The reusable old memories are sparse so
the actual memory containing the data should be also sparse.
So if some part is corrupted, it is still recoverable. Unless the DMA
went very wrong and wiped a large region of memory, but if such thing
happens, it's most likely kernel pages are also being wiped by DMA, so
the vmcore is already corrupted and kdump may not help. But at least
it won't fail silently, the userspace tool can still do something like
dump some available data to an easy to setup target.
And also that's one of the reasons not using old memory as kdump's
memory directly.
> > It's have been a long time issue that kdump suffers from OOM issue
> > with limited crashkernel memory. So reusing old memory could be very
> > helpful.
>
> There is a very fine line here between reusing existing code (aka
> drivers and userspace) and doing something that should work.
>
> It might make sense to figure out what is using so much memory
> that an OOM is triggered.
>
> Ages ago I did something that was essentially dumping the kernels printk
> buffer to the serial console in case of a crash and I had things down to
> something comparatively miniscule like 8M or less.
>
> My memory is that historically it has been high performance scsi raid
> drivers or something like that, that are behind the need to have such
> large memory reservations.
>
> Now that I think about it, you aren't by any chance doing something
> silly like running systemd in your initrd are you? Are these OOMs by
> any chance a userspace problem rather than a problem with inefficient
> drivers?
The problem with the user space is that, kdump is expected to dump to
different kinds of dump targets, and there are some very memory
consuming ones, eg. the NFSv3 case. And there are many other labor
heavy jobs for the dump target setup, like network setup, lvm setup,
iscsi setup, multipath etc, etc, not to mention potential corner cases
with these dump targets. And it is not practical to reimplement them
again in a memory friendly way.
And the user space is growing, even if user only included "bash
makedumpfile ssh ip" and required libs in initramfs, which are
essential for dumping the vmcore over SSH (dump over SSH is commonly
used), the initramfs will take 20M after decompressed.
The kernel driver memory usage is trackable and I only encountered a
few of such issues, and many have applied workaround for kdump. And if
userspace memory pressure is reduced, kernel will also have more
memory.
And now in Fedora, it is using the existing tool Dracut to generate
the initramfs, which heavily depends on systemd indeed. Even with
these helpers, it has been taking quite some work to support all the
dump targets.
>
> In summary you either need to show that it is safe to reuse the
> memory of the old kernel, or do some work to reduce the memory footprint
> of the crashdump kernel, and the crashdump userspace.
>
> Eric
>
--
Best Regards,
Kairui Song
Kairui Song <[email protected]> writes:
> Currently vmcore only supports reading, this patch series is an RFC
> to add writing support to vmcore. It's x86_64 only yet, I'll add other
> architecture later if there is no problem with this idea.
>
> My purpose of adding writing support is to reuse the crashed kernel's
> old memory in kdump kernel, reduce kdump memory pressure, and
> allow kdump to run with a smaller crashkernel reservation.
>
> This is doable because in most cases, after kernel panic, user only
> interested in the crashed kernel itself, and userspace/cache/free
> memory pages are not dumped. `makedumpfile` is widely used to skip
> these pages. Kernel pages usually only take a small part of
> the whole old memory. So there will be many reusable pages.
>
> By adding writing support, userspace then can use these pages as a fast
> and temporary storage. This helps reduce memory pressure in many ways.
>
> For example, I've written a POC program based on this, it will find
> the reusable pages, and creates an NBD device which maps to these pages.
> The NBD device can then be used as swap, or to hold some temp files
> which previouly live in RAM.
>
> The link of the POC tool: https://github.com/ryncsn/kdumpd
A couple of thoughts.
1) Unless I am completely mistaken treating this as a exercise in
memory hotplug would be much simpler.
AKA just plug in the memory that is not needed as part of the kdump.
I see below that you have problems doing this because
of fragmentation. I still think hotplug is doable using some
kind of fragmented memory zone.
2) The purpose of the memory reservation is because hardware is
still potentially running agains the memory of the old kernel.
By the time we have brought up a new kernel enough of the hardware
may have been reinitialized that we don't have to worry about
hardware randomly dma'ing into the memory used by the old kernel.
With IOMMUs and care we may be able to guarantee for some machine
configurations it is impossible for DMA to come from some piece of
hardware that is present but the kernel does not have a driver
loaded for.
I really do not like this approach because it is fundamentlly doing the
wrong thing. Adding write support to read-only drivers. I do not see
anywhere that you even mentioned the hard problem and the reason we
reserve memory in the first place. Hardware spontaneously DMA'ing onto
it.
> It's have been a long time issue that kdump suffers from OOM issue
> with limited crashkernel memory. So reusing old memory could be very
> helpful.
There is a very fine line here between reusing existing code (aka
drivers and userspace) and doing something that should work.
It might make sense to figure out what is using so much memory
that an OOM is triggered.
Ages ago I did something that was essentially dumping the kernels printk
buffer to the serial console in case of a crash and I had things down to
something comparatively miniscule like 8M or less.
My memory is that historically it has been high performance scsi raid
drivers or something like that, that are behind the need to have such
large memory reservations.
Now that I think about it, you aren't by any chance doing something
silly like running systemd in your initrd are you? Are these OOMs by
any chance a userspace problem rather than a problem with inefficient
drivers?
In summary you either need to show that it is safe to reuse the
memory of the old kernel, or do some work to reduce the memory footprint
of the crashdump kernel, and the crashdump userspace.
Eric
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:43 AM Kairui Song <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:04 PM Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Kairui Song <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > Currently vmcore only supports reading, this patch series is an RFC
> > > to add writing support to vmcore. It's x86_64 only yet, I'll add other
> > > architecture later if there is no problem with this idea.
> > >
> > > My purpose of adding writing support is to reuse the crashed kernel's
> > > old memory in kdump kernel, reduce kdump memory pressure, and
> > > allow kdump to run with a smaller crashkernel reservation.
> > >
> > > This is doable because in most cases, after kernel panic, user only
> > > interested in the crashed kernel itself, and userspace/cache/free
> > > memory pages are not dumped. `makedumpfile` is widely used to skip
> > > these pages. Kernel pages usually only take a small part of
> > > the whole old memory. So there will be many reusable pages.
> > >
> > > By adding writing support, userspace then can use these pages as a fast
> > > and temporary storage. This helps reduce memory pressure in many ways.
> > >
> > > For example, I've written a POC program based on this, it will find
> > > the reusable pages, and creates an NBD device which maps to these pages.
> > > The NBD device can then be used as swap, or to hold some temp files
> > > which previouly live in RAM.
> > >
> > > The link of the POC tool: https://github.com/ryncsn/kdumpd
> >
> > A couple of thoughts.
> > 1) Unless I am completely mistaken treating this as a exercise in
> > memory hotplug would be much simpler.
> >
> > AKA just plug in the memory that is not needed as part of the kdump.
> >
> > I see below that you have problems doing this because
> > of fragmentation. I still think hotplug is doable using some
> > kind of fragmented memory zone.
> >
> > 2) The purpose of the memory reservation is because hardware is
> > still potentially running agains the memory of the old kernel.
> >
> > By the time we have brought up a new kernel enough of the hardware
> > may have been reinitialized that we don't have to worry about
> > hardware randomly dma'ing into the memory used by the old kernel.
> >
> > With IOMMUs and care we may be able to guarantee for some machine
> > configurations it is impossible for DMA to come from some piece of
> > hardware that is present but the kernel does not have a driver
> > loaded for.\
> >
> > I really do not like this approach because it is fundamentlly doing the
> > wrong thing. Adding write support to read-only drivers. I do not see
> > anywhere that you even mentioned the hard problem and the reason we
> > reserve memory in the first place. Hardware spontaneously DMA'ing onto
> > it.
> >
> That POC tool looks ugly for now as it only a draft to prove this
> works, sorry about it.
>
> For the patch, yes, it is expecting IOMMU to lower the chance of
> potential DMA issue, and expecting DMA will not hit userspace/free
> page, or at least won't override a massive amount of reusable old
> memory. And I thought about some solutions for the potential DMA
> issue.
>
> As old memories are used as a block device, which is proxied by
> userspace, so upon each IO, the userspace tool could do an integrity
> check of the corresponding data stored in old mem, and keep multiple
> copies of the data. (eg. use 512M of old memory to hold a 128M block
> device). These copies will be kept far away from each other regarding
> the physical memory location. The reusable old memories are sparse so
> the actual memory containing the data should be also sparse.
> So if some part is corrupted, it is still recoverable. Unless the DMA
> went very wrong and wiped a large region of memory, but if such thing
> happens, it's most likely kernel pages are also being wiped by DMA, so
> the vmcore is already corrupted and kdump may not help. But at least
> it won't fail silently, the userspace tool can still do something like
> dump some available data to an easy to setup target.
>
> And also that's one of the reasons not using old memory as kdump's
> memory directly.
>
> > > It's have been a long time issue that kdump suffers from OOM issue
> > > with limited crashkernel memory. So reusing old memory could be very
> > > helpful.
> >
> > There is a very fine line here between reusing existing code (aka
> > drivers and userspace) and doing something that should work.
> >
> > It might make sense to figure out what is using so much memory
> > that an OOM is triggered.
> >
> > Ages ago I did something that was essentially dumping the kernels printk
> > buffer to the serial console in case of a crash and I had things down to
> > something comparatively miniscule like 8M or less.
> >
> > My memory is that historically it has been high performance scsi raid
> > drivers or something like that, that are behind the need to have such
> > large memory reservations.
> >
> > Now that I think about it, you aren't by any chance doing something
> > silly like running systemd in your initrd are you? Are these OOMs by
> > any chance a userspace problem rather than a problem with inefficient
> > drivers?
>
> The problem with the user space is that, kdump is expected to dump to
> different kinds of dump targets, and there are some very memory
> consuming ones, eg. the NFSv3 case. And there are many other labor
> heavy jobs for the dump target setup, like network setup, lvm setup,
> iscsi setup, multipath etc, etc, not to mention potential corner cases
> with these dump targets. And it is not practical to reimplement them
> again in a memory friendly way.
>
> And the user space is growing, even if user only included "bash
> makedumpfile ssh ip" and required libs in initramfs, which are
> essential for dumping the vmcore over SSH (dump over SSH is commonly
> used), the initramfs will take 20M after decompressed.
>
> The kernel driver memory usage is trackable and I only encountered a
> few of such issues, and many have applied workaround for kdump. And if
> userspace memory pressure is reduced, kernel will also have more
> memory.
>
> And now in Fedora, it is using the existing tool Dracut to generate
> the initramfs, which heavily depends on systemd indeed. Even with
> these helpers, it has been taking quite some work to support all the
> dump targets.
>
> >
> > In summary you either need to show that it is safe to reuse the
> > memory of the old kernel, or do some work to reduce the memory footprint
> > of the crashdump kernel, and the crashdump userspace.
> >
> > Eric
> >
>
>
Hi Eric,
I'm trying a new idea, that is, stop the DMA by clearing the PCI's bus
master bit, it's still a best-effort try, but should be helpful for
most cases:
diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c
index 03d37128a24f..736e3d13287f 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
@@ -1825,6 +1825,10 @@ int pci_setup_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
/* Early fixups, before probing the BARs */
pci_fixup_device(pci_fixup_early, dev);
+ if (reset_devices && !(class & (PCI_CLASS_DISPLAY_VGA |
PCI_BASE_CLASS_BRIDGE)))
+ pci_clear_master(dev);
+
pci_info(dev, "[%04x:%04x] type %02x class %#08x\n",
dev->vendor, dev->device, dev->hdr_type, dev->class);
With these techniques (some are mentioned in the previous reply), do
you think reuse old memory will be acceptable?
1. Try to stop DMA by clearing the bus master bit.
2. Do some verification upon each IO to detect DMA issues, store
redundant data for recovery.
3. If an unrecoverable DMA issue still occurs, do a fallback dump to
an easy-to-setup target.
--
Best Regards,
Kairui Song