Re: [PATCH v12 7/7] x86/crash: Add x86 crash hotplug support

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 10:29:45AM -0500, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> So it is with this in mind that I suggest we stay with the statically sized elfcorehdr buffer.
> 
> If that can be agreed upon, then it is "just a matter" of picking a useful
> elfcorehdr size. Currently that size is derived from the NR_DEFAULT_CPUS and
> CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES. So, there is still the CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES knob
> to help a dial in size, should there be some issue with the default
> value/size.

Let's see

        kbuf.memsz =
                (CONFIG_NR_CPUS_DEFAULT + CONFIG_CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES) *
                        sizeof(Elf64_Phdr);

which, IINM, is

	(8192 + 32768) * 56

which is something like 2M.

(CONFIG_NR_CPUS_DEFAULT = 8192 - this is because of MAXSMP which gets
set on distro kernels)

Now, since userspace kexec tools uses 2048 for max memory ranges, that
size becomes smaller - around half a Mb. And since y'all wanna be on the
safe side, you can quadruple it and have

	(8192 + 8192) * 56

which is still under a megabyte. And that's fine, I guess, on a big
server.

> Or if there is desire to drop computing the size from NR_DEFAULT_CPUs and

I think you should leave the dependency on the Kconfig size so that
smaller machines which are configured this way, don't end up wasting
unnecessary memory.

> It is my intention to correct the CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES (if we keep it) as such:
> 
> config CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES
>     depends on CRASH_DUMP && KEXEC_FILE && MEMORY_HOTPLUG

Yes, but don't leave it to the user to decide what number to choose
- choose a high enough number, explain why you've chosen this with a
comment and that's it.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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