From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Guanghui Feng <guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Mike Rapoport <mike.rapoport@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm64/mm: remap crash kernel with base pages even if rodata_full disabled
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 17:31:37 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YwzNyVH8FB374In5@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YwspSc83XveXSFnW@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 04:37:29PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 08/25/22 at 10:48am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> ......
> > > > There were several rounds of discussion how to remap with base pages only
> > > > the crash kernel area, the latest one here:
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/1656777473-73887-1-git-send-email-guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com
> > > >
> > > > and this is my attempt to allow having both large pages in the linear map
> > > > and protection for the crash kernel memory.
> > > >
> > > > For server systems it is important to protect crash kernel memory for
> > > > post-mortem analysis, and for that protection to work the crash kernel
> > > > memory should be mapped with base pages in the linear map.
> > > >
> > > > On the systems with ZONE_DMA/DMA32 enabled, crash kernel reservation
> > > > happens after the linear map is created and the current code forces using
> > > > base pages for the entire linear map, which results in performance
> > > > degradation.
> > > >
> > > > These patches enable remapping of the crash kernel area with base pages
> > > > while keeping large pages in the rest of the linear map.
> > > >
> > > > The idea is to align crash kernel reservation to PUD boundaries, remap that
> > > > PUD and then free the extra memory.
> > >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the effort to work on this issue. While I have to say this
> > > isnt's good because it can only be made relying on a prerequisite that
> > > there's big enough memory. If on a system, say 2G memory, it's not easy
> > > to succeed on getting one 1G memory. While we only require far smaller
> > > region than 1G, e.g about 200M which should be easy to get. So the way
> > > taken in this patchset is too quirky and will cause regression on
> > > systemswith small memory. This kind of sytems with small memory exists
> > > widely on virt guest instance.
> >
> > I don't agree there is a regression. If the PUD-aligned allocation fails,
> > there is a fallback to the allocation of the exact size requested for crash
> > kernel. This allocation just won't get protected.
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood it. I just went through the log and didn't
> look into codes.
>
> But honestly, if we accept the fallback which doesn't do the protection,
> we should be able to take off the protection completely, right?
> Otherwise, the reservation code is a little complicated.
We don't do protection of the crash kernel for most architectures
supporting kexec ;-)
My goal was to allow large systems with ZONE_DMA/DMA32 have block mappings
in the linear map and crash kernel protection without breaking backward
compatibility for the existing systems.
> > Also please note, that the changes are only for the case when user didn't
> > force base-size pages in the linear map, so anything that works now will
> > work the same way with this set applied.
> >
> > > The crashkernel reservation happens after linear map because the
> > > reservation needs to know the dma zone boundary, arm64_dma_phys_limit.
> > > If we can deduce that before bootmem_init(), the reservation can be
> > > done before linear map. I will make an attempt on that. If still can't
> > > be accepted, we would like to take off the crashkernel region protection
> > > on arm64 for now.
> >
> > I doubt it would be easy because arm64_dma_phys_limit is determined after
> > parsing of the device tree and there might be memory allocations of
> > possibly unmapped memory during the parsing.
>
> I have sent out the patches with an attempt, it's pretty straightforward
> and simple. Because arm64 only has one exception, namely Raspberry Pi 4,
> on which some peripherals can only address 30bit range. That is a corner
> case, to be honest. And kdump is a necessary feature on server, but may
> not be so expected on Raspberry Pi 4, a system for computer education
> and hobbyists. And kdump only cares whether the dump target devices can
> address 32bit range, namely storage device or network card on server.
> If finally confirmed that storage devices can only address 30bit range
> on Raspberry Pi 4, people still can have crashkernel=xM@yM method to
> reserve crashkernel regions.
I hope you are right and Raspberry Pi 4 is the only system that limits
DMA'able range to 30 bits. But with diversity of arm64 chips and boards I
won't be surprised that there are other variants with a similar problem.
> Thanks
> Baoquan
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-29 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-19 4:11 Mike Rapoport
2022-08-19 4:11 ` [PATCH 1/5] arm64: rename defer_reserve_crashkernel() to have_zone_dma() Mike Rapoport
2022-08-19 4:11 ` [PATCH 2/5] arm64/mmu: drop _hotplug from unmap_hotplug_* function names Mike Rapoport
2022-08-19 4:11 ` [PATCH 3/5] arm64/mmu: move helpers for hotplug page tables freeing close to callers Mike Rapoport
2022-08-19 4:11 ` [PATCH 4/5] arm64/mm: remap crash kernel with base pages even if rodata_full disabled Mike Rapoport
2022-08-19 4:11 ` [PATCH 5/5] arm64/mmu: simplify logic around crash kernel mapping in map_mem() Mike Rapoport
2022-08-25 7:35 ` [PATCH 0/5] arm64/mm: remap crash kernel with base pages even if rodata_full disabled Baoquan He
2022-08-25 7:48 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-08-28 8:37 ` Baoquan He
2022-08-29 14:31 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2022-08-30 3:24 ` Baoquan He
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YwzNyVH8FB374In5@kernel.org \
--to=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mike.rapoport@gmail.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox