Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 22 May 2018 09:43:48 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, dzickus@redhat.com,
        bhe@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdump: add default crashkernel reserve kernel config
 options
Message-ID: <20180522014348.GA6827@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
References: <20180521025337.GA4627@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <20180521120215.117d963a7619eb0d1f54bced@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180521120215.117d963a7619eb0d1f54bced@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/21/18 at 12:02pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:53:37 +0800 Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > This is a rework of the crashkernel=auto patches back to 2009 although
> > I'm not sure if below is the last version of the old effort:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/12/61
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/345344/
> > 
> > I changed the original design, instead of adding the auto reserve logic
> > in code, in this patch just introduce two kernel config options for
> > the default crashkernel value in MB and the threshold of system memory
> > in MB so that only reserve default when system memory is equal or
> > above the threshold.
> > 
> > With the kernel configs distributions can easily change the default
> > values so that people do not need to manually set kernel cmdline
> > for common use cases and one can still overwrite the default value
> > with manual setup or disable it by using crashkernel=0
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > Another difference is with original design the crashkernel size scales
> > with system memory, according to test, large machine may need more
> > memory in kdump kernel because of several factors:
> > 1. cpu numbers, because of the percpu memory allocated for cpus.
> >    (kdump can use nr_cpus=1 to workaround this, but some
> >     arches do not support nr_cpus=X for example powerpc) 
> > 2. IO devices, large system can have a lot of io devices, although we
> >    can try to only add those device drivers we needed, it is still a
> >    problem because of some built-in drivers, some stacked logical devices
> >    eg. device mapper devices, acpi etc.  Even if only considering the
> >    meta data for driver model it will still be a big number eg. sysfs
> >    files etc.
> > 3. The minimum memory requirement for some device drivers are big, even
> >    if some of them have implemented low meory profile.  It is usual to see
> >    10M memory use for a storage driver.
> > 4. user space initramfs size growing.  Busybox is not usable if we need
> >    to add udev support and some complicate storage support.  Use dracut
> >    with systemd, especially networking stuff need more memory.
> > 
> > So probably add another kernel config option to scale the memory size
> > eg.  CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_SCALE_RATIO is also good to have,  in RHEL we
> > use base_value + system_mem >> (2^14) for x86.  I'm still hesatating
> > how to describe and add this option. Any suggestions will be appreciated.
> > 
> > ...
> >
> > --- linux-x86.orig/arch/Kconfig
> > +++ linux-x86/arch/Kconfig
> > @@ -10,6 +10,22 @@ config KEXEC_CORE
> >  	select CRASH_CORE
> >  	bool
> >  
> > +config CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_THRESHOLD_MB
> > +	int "System memory size threshold for kdump memory default reserving"
> > +	depends on CRASH_CORE
> > +	default 0
> > +	help
> > +	  CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_MB is used as default crashkernel value if
> > +	  the system memory size is equal or bigger than the threshold.
> 
> "the threshold" is rather vague.  Can it be clarified?
> 
> In fact I'm really struggling to understand the logic here....
> 
> 
> > +config CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_MB
> > +	int "Default crashkernel memory size reserved for kdump"
> > +	depends on CRASH_CORE
> > +	default 0
> > +	help
> > +	  This is used as the default kdump reserved memory size in MB.
> > +	  crashkernel=X kernel cmdline can overwrite this value.
> > +
> >  config HAVE_IMA_KEXEC
> >  	bool
> >  
> > @@ -143,6 +144,24 @@ static int __init parse_crashkernel_simp
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int __init get_crashkernel_default(unsigned long long system_ram,
> > +					  unsigned long long *size)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long long sz = CONFIG_CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_MB;
> > +	unsigned long long thres = CONFIG_CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_THRESHOLD_MB;
> > +
> > +	thres *= SZ_1M;
> > +	sz *= SZ_1M;
> > +
> > +	if (sz >= system_ram || system_ram < thres) {
> > +		pr_debug("crashkernel default size can not be used.\n");
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> 
> In other words,
> 
> 	if (system_ram <= CONFIG_CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_MB ||
> 	    system_ram < CONFIG_CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_THRESHOLD_MB)
> 		fail;
> 
> yes?

the first comparison is a sanity check for the default reserved
size, if it is bigger than system ram size it is apparently bad:
if ( CONFIG_CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_MB >= system_ram )
	fail;

The second comparison is for the threshold setting, it is a designed
logic like:
if ( system_ram >= CONFIG_CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_THRESHOLD_MB ) then
	go ahead to use the default value of CONFIG_CRASHKERNEL_DEFAULT_MB

> 
> How come?  What's happening here?  Perhaps a (good) explanatory comment
> is needed.  And clearer Kconfig text.
> 
> All confused :(

Hmm, scratch head~, will think about how to describe it better.  If you
have any suggestions just let me know :)

Thanks
Dave