lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] x86/kdump: Reserve extra memory when SME or SEV is active
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:45:35PM +0800, Kairui Song wrote:
> Since commit c7753208a94c ("x86, swiotlb: Add memory encryption support"),
> SWIOTLB will be enabled even if there is less than 4G of memory when SME
> is active, to support DMA of devices that not support address with the
> encrypt bit.
>
> And commit aba2d9a6385a ("iommu/amd: Do not disable SWIOTLB if SME is
> active") make the kernel keep SWIOTLB enabled even if there is an IOMMU.
>
> Then commit d7b417fa08d1 ("x86/mm: Add DMA support for SEV memory
> encryption") will always force SWIOTLB to be enabled when SEV is active
> in all cases.
>
> Now, when either SME or SEV is active, SWIOTLB will be force enabled,
> and this is also true for kdump kernel. As a result kdump kernel will
> run out of already scarce pre-reserved memory easily.
>
> So when SME/SEV is active, reserve extra memory for SWIOTLB to ensure
> kdump kernel have enough memory, except when "crashkernel=size[KMG],high"
> is specified or any offset is used. As for the high reservation case, an
> extra low memory region will always be reserved and that is enough for
> SWIOTLB. Else if the offset format is used, user should be fully aware
> of any possible kdump kernel memory requirement and have to organize the
> memory usage carefully.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@redhat.com>
>
> ---
> Update from V1:
> - Use mem_encrypt_active() instead of "sme_active() || sev_active()"
> - Don't reserve extra memory when ",high" or "@offset" is used, and
> don't print redundant message.
> - Fix coding style problem
>
> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index bbe35bf879f5..221beb10c55d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
>
> static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> {
> - unsigned long long crash_size, crash_base, total_mem;
> + unsigned long long crash_size, crash_base, total_mem, mem_enc_req;
> bool high = false;
> int ret;
>
> @@ -550,6 +550,15 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> return;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * When SME/SEV is active, it will always required an extra SWIOTLB
> + * region.
> + */
> + if (mem_encrypt_active())
> + mem_enc_req = ALIGN(swiotlb_size_or_default(), SZ_1M);
> + else
> + mem_enc_req = 0;

Hmm, ugly.

You set mem_enc_reg here ...

> +
> /* 0 means: find the address automatically */
> if (!crash_base) {
> /*
> @@ -563,11 +572,19 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> if (!high)
> crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN,
> CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX,
> - crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
> - if (!crash_base)
> + crash_size + mem_enc_req,
> + CRASH_ALIGN);
> + /*
> + * For high reservation, an extra low memory for SWIOTLB will
> + * always be reserved later, so no need to reserve extra
> + * memory for memory encryption case here.
> + */
> + if (!crash_base) {
> + mem_enc_req = 0;

... but you clear it here...

> crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN,
> CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX,
> crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
> + }
> if (!crash_base) {
> pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
> return;
> @@ -575,6 +592,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> } else {
> unsigned long long start;
>
> + mem_enc_req = 0;

... and here...

> start = memblock_find_in_range(crash_base,
> crash_base + crash_size,
> crash_size, 1 << 20);
> @@ -583,6 +601,13 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> return;
> }
> }
> +
> + if (mem_enc_req) {
> + pr_info("Memory encryption is active, crashkernel needs %ldMB extra memory\n",
> + (unsigned long)(mem_enc_req >> 20));
> + crash_size += mem_enc_req;
> + }

... and then you report only when it is still set.

How about you carve out that if (!crash_base) { ... } else { } piece
into a separate function without any further changes - only code
movement? That is your patch 1.

Your patch 2 is then adding the mem_encrypt_active() check in the if
(!crash_base && !high) case, i.e., only where you need it and issuing
the pr_info from there instead of stretching that logic throughout the
whole function and twisting my brain unnecessarily?

Thx.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-30 18:45    [W:0.147 / U:7.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site