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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190708211528.12392-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
 <CACi5LpNGWhTnXyM8gB0Tn=682+08s-ppfDpX2SawfxMvue1GTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+CK2bBrwBHhD-PFO_gVnDYoFi0Su6t456WNdtBWpOe4qM+oww@mail.gmail.com>
 <2d60f302-5161-638a-76cd-d7d79e5631fe@arm.com> <CA+CK2bA40wQvX=KieE5Qg2Ny5ZyiDAAjAb9W7Phu2Ou_9r6bOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <f9bea5bd-370a-47b5-8ad1-a30bd43d6cca@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <f9bea5bd-370a-47b5-8ad1-a30bd43d6cca@arm.com>
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:56:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bBWis8TgyOmDhVgLYrOU95Za-UhSGSB3ufsjiNDt-Zd_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v1 0/5] allow to reserve memory for normal kexec kernel
To:     James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Cc:     Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        kexec mailing list <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, will@kernel.org,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:19 AM James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Pasha,
>
> On 09/07/2019 14:07, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> >>> Enabling MMU and D-Cache for relocation  would essentially require the
> >>> same changes in kernel. Could you please share exactly why these were
> >>> not accepted upstream into kexec-tools?
> >>
> >> Because '--no-checks' is a much simpler alternative.
> >>
> >> More of the discussion:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/5599813d-f83c-d154-287a-c131c48292ca@arm.com/
> >>
> >> While you can make purgatory a fully-fledged operating system, it doesn't really need to
> >> do anything on arm64. Errata-workarounds alone are a reason not do start down this path.
> >
> > Thank you James. I will summaries the information gathered from the
> > yesterday's/today's discussion and add it to the cover letter together
> > with ARM64 tag. I think, the patch series makes sense for ARM64 only,
> > unless there are other platforms that disable caching/MMU during
> > relocation.
>
> I'd prefer not to reserve additional memory for regular kexec just to avoid the relocation.
> If the kernel's relocation work is so painful we can investigate doing it while the MMU is
> enabled. If you can compare regular-kexec with kexec_file_load() you eliminate the
> purgatory part of the work.

Relocation time is exactly the same for regular-kexec and
kexec_file_load(). So, the relocation is indeed painful for our case.
I am working on adding MMU enabled kernel relocation.

Pasha