lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 1/4] x86: kdump: move reserve_crashkernel_low() into crash_core.c
From
Date


On 2020/2/24 23:25, John Donnelly wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 9:47 AM, John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 9:17 AM, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> On 28/12/2019 09:32, Dave Young wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/19 at 07:04pm, Chen Zhou wrote:
>>>>> On 2019/12/27 13:54, Dave Young wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/23/19 at 11:23pm, Chen Zhou wrote:
>>>>>>> In preparation for supporting reserve_crashkernel_low in arm64 as
>>>>>>> x86_64 does, move reserve_crashkernel_low() into kernel/crash_core.c.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, in arm64, we reserve low memory if and only if crashkernel=X,low
>>>>>>> is specified. Different with x86_64, don't set low memory automatically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any reason for the difference? I'd expect we have same
>>>>>> logic if possible and remove some of the ifdefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In x86_64, if we reserve crashkernel above 4G, then we call reserve_crashkernel_low()
>>>>> to reserve low memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> In arm64, to simplify, we call reserve_crashkernel_low() at the beginning of reserve_crashkernel()
>>>>> and then relax the arm64_dma32_phys_limit if reserve_crashkernel_low() allocated something.
>>>>> In this case, if reserve crashkernel below 4G there will be 256M low memory set automatically
>>>>> and this needs extra considerations.
>>>
>>>> Sorry that I did not read the old thread details and thought that is
>>>> arch dependent. But rethink about that, it would be better that we can
>>>> have same semantic about crashkernel parameters across arches. If we
>>>> make them different then it causes confusion, especially for
>>>> distributions.
>>>
>>> Surely distros also want one crashkernel* string they can use on all platforms without
>>> having to detect the kernel version, platform or changeable memory layout...
>>>
>>>
>>>> OTOH, I thought if we reserve high memory then the low memory should be
>>>> needed. There might be some exceptions, but I do not know the exact
>>>> one,
>>>
>>>> can we make the behavior same, and special case those systems which
>>>> do not need low memory reservation.
>>>
>>> Its tricky to work out which systems are the 'normal' ones.
>>>
>>> We don't have a fixed memory layout for arm64. Some systems have no memory below 4G.
>>> Others have no memory above 4G.
>>>
>>> Chen Zhou's machine has some memory below 4G, but its too precious to reserve a large
>>> chunk for kdump. Without any memory below 4G some of the drivers won't work.
>>>
>>> I don't see what distros can set as their default for all platforms if high/low are
>>> mutually exclusive with the 'crashkernel=' in use today. How did x86 navigate this, ... or
>>> was it so long ago?
>>>
>>> No one else has reported a problem with the existing placement logic, hence treating this
>>> 'low' thing as the 'in addition' special case.
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am seeing similar Arm crash dump issues on 5.4 kernels where we need rather large amount of crashkernel memory reserved that is not available below 4GB ( The maximum reserved size appears to be around 768M ) . When I pick memory range higher than 4GB , I see adapters that fail to initialize :
>>
>>
>> There is no low-memory <4G memory for DMA ;
>>
>> [ 11.506792] kworker/0:14: page allocation failure: order:0,
>> mode:0x104(GFP_DMA32|__GFP_ZERO), nodemask=(null),cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0
>> [ 11.518793] CPU: 0 PID: 150 Comm: kworker/0:14 Not tainted
>> 5.4.0-1948.3.el8uek.aarch64 #1
>> [ 11.526955] Hardware name: To be filled by O.E.M. Saber/Saber, BIOS
>> 0ACKL025 01/18/2019
>> [ 11.534948] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn
>> [ 11.539291] Call trace:
>> [ 11.541727] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x18c
>> [ 11.545376] show_stack+0x24/0x30
>> [ 11.548679] dump_stack+0xbc/0xe0
>> [ 11.551982] warn_alloc+0xf0/0x15c
>> [ 11.555370] __alloc_pages_slowpath+0xb4c/0xb84
>> [ 11.559887] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x2d0/0x330
>> [ 11.564405] alloc_pages_current+0x8c/0xf8
>> [ 11.568496] ttm_bo_device_init+0x188/0x220 [ttm]
>> [ 11.573187] drm_vram_mm_init+0x58/0x80 [drm_vram_helper]
>> [ 11.578572] drm_vram_helper_alloc_mm+0x64/0xb0 [drm_vram_helper]
>> [ 11.584655] ast_mm_init+0x38/0x80 [ast]
>> [ 11.588566] ast_driver_load+0x474/0xa70 [ast]
>> [ 11.593029] drm_dev_register+0x144/0x1c8 [drm]
>> [ 11.597573] drm_get_pci_dev+0xa4/0x168 [drm]
>> [ 11.601919] ast_pci_probe+0x8c/0x9c [ast]
>> [ 11.606004] local_pci_probe+0x44/0x98
>> [ 11.609739] work_for_cpu_fn+0x20/0x30
>> [ 11.613474] process_one_work+0x1c4/0x41c
>> [ 11.617470] worker_thread+0x150/0x4b0
>> [ 11.621206] kthread+0x110/0x114
>> [ 11.624422] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>
>> This failure is related to a graphics adapter.
>>
>> The more complex kdump configurations that use networking stack to NFS mount a filesystem to dump to , or use ssh to copy to another machine, require more crashkernel memory reservations than perhaps the “default*” settings of a minimal kdump that creates a minimal vmcore to local storage in /var/crash. If crashkernel is too small I get Out of Memory issues and the entire vmcore process fails.
>>
>> ( *default kdump setting I assume are a minimal vmcore to /var/crash using primary boot device where /root is located )
>>
> Hi Chen,
>
>
> I was able to unit test these series of kernel patches applied to a 5.4.17 test kernel along with the kexec CLI change :
>
> 0001-arm64-kdump-add-another-DT-property-to-crash-dump-ke.patch
>
> Applied to :
>
> kexec-tools-2.0.19-12.0.4.el8.src.rpm
>
> And obtained a vmcore using this cmdline :
>
> BOOT_IMAGE=(hd6,gpt2)/vmlinuz-5.4.17-4-uek6m_ol8-jpdonnel+ root=/dev/mapper/ol01-root ro crashkernel=2048M@35G crashkernel=250M,low rd.lvm.lv=ol01/root rd.lvm.lv=ol01/swap console=ttyS4 loglevel=7
>
> Can you add :
>
> Tested-by: John Donnelly <John.p.donnelly@oracle.com>
>
>
> How can we get these changes included into an rc kernel release ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John.

Hi all,

Friendly ping...

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> previous discusses:
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lkml.org_lkml_2019_6_5_670&d=DwICAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=t2fPg9D87F7D8jm0_3CG9yoiIKdRg4qc_thBw4bzMhc&m=jOAu1DTDpohsWszalfTCYx46eGF19TSWVLchN5yBPgk&s=gS9BLOkmj78lP5L7SP6_VLHwvP249uWKaE2R7N7sxgM&e=
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lkml.org_lkml_2019_6_13_229&d=DwICAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=t2fPg9D87F7D8jm0_3CG9yoiIKdRg4qc_thBw4bzMhc&m=jOAu1DTDpohsWszalfTCYx46eGF19TSWVLchN5yBPgk&s=U1Nis29n3A7XSBzED53fiE4MDAv5NlxYp1UorvvBOOw&e=
>>>>
>>>> Another concern from James:
>>>> "
>>>> With both crashk_low_res and crashk_res, we end up with two entries in /proc/iomem called
>>>> "Crash kernel". Because its sorted by address, and kexec-tools stops searching when it
>>>> find "Crash kernel", you are always going to get the kernel placed in the lower portion.
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> The kexec-tools code is iterating all "Crash kernel" ranges and add them
>>>> in an array. In X86 code, it uses the higher range to locate memory.
>>>
>>> Then my hurried reading of what the user-space code does was wrong!
>>>
>>> If kexec-tools places the kernel in the low region, there may not be enough memory left
>>> for whatever purpose it was reserved for. This was the motivation for giving it a
>>> different name.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> kexec mailing list
>>> kexec@lists.infradead.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.infradead.org_mailman_listinfo_kexec&d=DwICAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=t2fPg9D87F7D8jm0_3CG9yoiIKdRg4qc_thBw4bzMhc&m=jOAu1DTDpohsWszalfTCYx46eGF19TSWVLchN5yBPgk&s=bqp02iQDP_Ez-XvLIvj-IPHqbbZwMPlDgmEcG8vhXFE&e=
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> kexec mailing list
>> kexec@lists.infradead.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.infradead.org_mailman_listinfo_kexec&d=DwIGaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=t2fPg9D87F7D8jm0_3CG9yoiIKdRg4qc_thBw4bzMhc&m=whm9_BOrgAjJvBn0Ey_brHhFg2YMU_P0HF02dhgdgwU&s=vLar_m5JbicYwwuo6N84ZiBDGZUPM8bBLSPLQBtPZNY&e=
>
>
> .
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-02 02:29    [W:0.108 / U:26.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site