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;
From:   Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>
To:     kexec@lists.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, yinghai@kernel.org,
        vgoyal@redhat.com, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Subject: [PATCHv7] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X consistent with kaslr
Date:   Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:07:03 +0800
Message-Id: <1547539623-18201-1-git-send-email-kernelfans@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

People reported a bug on a high end server with many pcie devices, where
kernel bootup with crashkernel=384M, and kaslr is enabled. Even
though we still see much memory under 896 MB, the finding still failed
intermittently. Because currently we can only find region under 896 MB,
if without ',high' specified. Then KASLR breaks 896 MB into several parts
randomly, and crashkernel reservation need be aligned to 128 MB, that's
why failure is found. It raises confusion to the end user that sometimes
crashkernel=X works while sometimes fails.
If want to make it succeed, customer can change kernel option to
"crashkernel=384M,high". Just this give "crashkernel=xx@yy" a very
limited space to behave even though its grammar looks more generic.
And we can't answer questions raised from customer that confidently:
1) why it doesn't succeed to reserve 896 MB;
2) what's wrong with memory region under 4G;
3) why I have to add ',high', I only require 384 MB, not 3840 MB.
This patch tries to get memory region from 896 MB firstly, then [896MB,4G],
finally above 4G.
Dave Young sent the original post, and I just re-post it with commit log
improvement as his requirement.
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2017-October/019571.html
There was an old discussion below (previously posted by Chao Wang):
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/15/601

Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: yinghai@kernel.org,
Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
---
v6 -> v7: fix spelling mistake pointed out by Randy
 arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
index 3d872a5..fa62c81 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
@@ -551,6 +551,22 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
 						    high ? CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX
 							 : CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX,
 						    crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
+		/*
+		 * crashkernel=X reserve below 896M fails? Try below 4G
+		 */
+		if (!high && !crash_base)
+			crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN,
+						(1ULL << 32),
+						crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
+		/*
+		 * crashkernel=X reserve below 4G fails? Try MAXMEM
+		 */
+		if (!high && !crash_base)
+			crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN,
+						CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX,
+						crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
+#endif
 		if (!crash_base) {
 			pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
 			return;
-- 
2.7.4