Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:50:09 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Wupeng Ma <mawupeng1@huawei.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, songmuchun@bytedance.com,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>, gpiccoli@igalia.com,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        vijayb@linux.microsoft.com,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] memblock: Disable mirror feature if kernelcore is
 not specified
Message-ID: <Yqhn4Qs1bzPY9J4s@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20220614092156.1972846-1-mawupeng1@huawei.com>
 <20220614092156.1972846-6-mawupeng1@huawei.com>
 <Yqhg6abZDGZSpJ7+@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <CAMj1kXGXvjrnY=Hzd4c3CYZsNT6OiqTcMmKT0tdnk=jFOiVpWA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXGXvjrnY=Hzd4c3CYZsNT6OiqTcMmKT0tdnk=jFOiVpWA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 06/14/22 at 12:27pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 at 12:20, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/14/22 at 05:21pm, Wupeng Ma wrote:
> > > From: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@huawei.com>
> > >
> > > If system have some mirrored memory and mirrored feature is not specified
> > > in boot parameter, the basic mirrored feature will be enabled and this will
> > > lead to the following situations:
> > >
> > > - memblock memory allocation prefers mirrored region. This may have some
> > >   unexpected influence on numa affinity.
> > >
> > > - contiguous memory will be split into several parts if parts of them
> > >   is mirrored memory via memblock_mark_mirror().
> > >
> > > To fix this, variable mirrored_kernelcore will be checked in
> > > memblock_mark_mirror(). Mark mirrored memory with flag MEMBLOCK_MIRROR iff
> > > kernelcore=mirror is added in the kernel parameters.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@huawei.com>
> > > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  mm/internal.h   | 2 ++
> > >  mm/memblock.c   | 3 +++
> > >  mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> > >  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> > > index c0f8fbe0445b..ddd2d6a46f1b 100644
> > > --- a/mm/internal.h
> > > +++ b/mm/internal.h
> > > @@ -861,4 +861,6 @@ struct folio *try_grab_folio(struct page *page, int refs, unsigned int flags);
> > >
> > >  DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct per_cpu_nodestat, boot_nodestats);
> > >
> > > +extern bool mirrored_kernelcore;
> > > +
> > >  #endif       /* __MM_INTERNAL_H */
> > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > > index b1d2a0009733..a9f18b988b7f 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > > @@ -924,6 +924,9 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_clear_hotplug(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> > >   */
> > >  int __init_memblock memblock_mark_mirror(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> > >  {
> > > +     if (!mirrored_kernelcore)
> > > +             return 0;
> >
> > memblock_mark_mirror() is just a wrapper, maybe we should check this in
> > efi_find_mirror(). Otherwise, how do we explain the message printed out
> > at below in boot log if we don't mark mirror memory at all?
> >
> > void __init efi_find_mirror(void)
> > {
> > ......
> >         if (mirror_size)
> >                 pr_info("Memory: %lldM/%lldM mirrored memory\n",
> >                         mirror_size>>20, total_size>>20);
> > }
> >
> 
> EFI does not care about *how* mirrored memory is being used or not, it
> just reports what the firmware provided. So EFI is not the appropriate
> level to take kernelcore=mirror into account.
> 
> I already mentioned that memblock_mark_mirror() is also the wrong
> place IMO, but Kefeng explained that doing it elsewhere is
> problematic.

OK, seems we have no better choice other than these two. 

>