Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-13222-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:10:52 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@gmail.com>, bp@alien8.de,
 dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, dyoung@redhat.com, eric.devolder@oracle.com,
 hbathini@linux.ibm.com, hpa@zytor.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
 lijiang@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
 seanjc@google.com, sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
 tiwai@suse.de, vgoyal@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] crash_core: fix and simplify the logic of
 crash_exclude_mem_range()
Message-Id: <20231229121052.cac37914c7a051b829fcf933@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZX0Z+IyaAX9lNSok@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <ZXxtfpXpuFXLd+ge@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
	<20231216015410.188924-1-ytcoode@gmail.com>
	<ZX0Z+IyaAX9lNSok@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:31:04 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:

> > > Imagine we have a crashkernel region 256M reserved under 4G, say [2G, 2G+256M].
> > > Then after excluding the 256M from a region, it should stop. But now, this patch
> > > will make it continue scanning. Not sure if it's all in my mind.
> > 
> > Hi Baoquan,
> > 
> > Thank you for such a detailed reply. Now I finally understand why the code is
> > written this way.
> > 
> > However, if we can guarantee its correctness, wouldn't it be better to use the
> > generic region removing logic? At least it is more concise and clear, and other
> > people reading this code for the first time wouldn't get confused like me.
> > 
> > As for your concern about the while loop, I think it wouldn't affect performance
> > much because the total number of loops is small.
> 
> Well, see below kexec-tools commit, you wouldn't say that. And when you
> understand the code, you will feel a little uncomfortable about the
> sustaining useless scanning. At least, we should stop scanning after
> needed exluding is done.
> 
> Or, we may need add a generic region removing function so that it
> can be shared, e.g e820 memory region removing, memblock region removing.
> Otherwise, I can't see why a specific region excluding need a generic 
> region removing function.

So where do we now stand on this patchset?

Thanks.