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, 25 Oct 2022 12:31:59 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc:     Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@oracle.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, david@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        dyoung@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        nramas@linux.microsoft.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        robh@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, rppt@kernel.org,
        sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 7/7] x86/crash: Add x86 crash hotplug support
Message-ID: <Y1e7Hw0PRDI9NxU9@zn.tnic>
References: <YzRxPAoN+XmOfJzV@zn.tnic>
 <fd08c13d-a917-4cd6-85ec-267e0fe74c41@oracle.com>
 <Yzceb/y3SSFMuALR@zn.tnic>
 <d6386653-eb71-188c-8a09-5db46b4e42d4@oracle.com>
 <YzcqE1RVtPcuLlxN@zn.tnic>
 <Y0Dh4ieUUZ4oXa1/@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <Y0b9apyIs+RpSo1e@zn.tnic>
 <53aed03e-2eed-09b1-9532-fe4e497ea47d@oracle.com>
 <Y0cmaPTKQuWtwIRh@zn.tnic>
 <Y0d+mFivS+88+Chr@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y0d+mFivS+88+Chr@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 10:57:28AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> The concern to range number mainly is on Virt guest systems.

And why would virt emulate 1K hotpluggable DIMM slots and not emulate a
real machine?

> On baremetal system, basically only very high end server support
> memory hotplug. I ever visited customer's lab and saw one server,
> it owns 8 slots, on each slot a box containing about 20 cpus and 2T
> memory at most can be plugged in at one time. So people won't make too
> many slots for hotplugging since it's too expensive.

There you have it - the persuading argument.

> I checked user space kexec code, the maximum memory range number is
> honored to x86_64 because of a HPE SGI system. After that, nobody
> complains about it. Please see below user space kexec-tools commit in
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.git
> 
> The memory ranges may be not all made by different DIMM slots, could be
> firmware reservatoin, e.g efi/BIOS diggged out physical memory,
			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't know what that means.

If it is firmware crap, you want to exclude that from kdump anyway.

> Now CONFIG_NR_CPUS has the maximum number as 8192. And user space
> kexec-tools has maximum memory range number as 2048. We can take
> the current 8192 + 2048  = 10K as default value conservatively. Or
> take 8192 + 2048 * 2 = 12K which has two times of maximum memory range
> bumber in kexec-tools. What do you think?

I still think that we should stick to reality and support what is
possible not what is potentially and theoretically there.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette