(Cc: Ard),

Mark, Ard, how does/will reserved-memory work on an APCI only system?


On 07/09/16 05:29, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>     v26-specific note: After a comment from Rob[0], an idea of adding
>     "linux,usable-memory-range" was dropped. Instead, an existing
>     "reserved-memory" node will be used to limit usable memory ranges
>     on crash dump kernel.
>     This works not only on UEFI/ACPI systems but also on DT-only systems,
>     but if he really insists on using DT-specific "usable-memory" property,
>     I will post additional patches for kexec-tools. Those would be
>     redundant, though.
>     Even in that case, the kernel will not have to be changed.

Some narrative on how the old memory ranges get reserved, as there is no longer
any code in the series doing this, (which is pretty neat!):

kexec-tools parses the list of memory ranges in /proc/iomem, and adds a node to
the /reserved-memory for System RAM ranges that don't cover the crash kernel.
Decompiling the crash-kernel DT from Seattle, it looks roughly like this:

        reserved-memory {
                ranges;
                #size-cells = <0x2>;
                #address-cells = <0x2>;

                crash_dump@83ffe50000 {
                        no-map;
                        reg = <0x83 0xffe50000 0x0 0x1b0000>;
                };

                [ ... ]
        };


'no-map' means its doing the same thing to memblock as
'linux,usable-memory-range' did in earlier versions,
early_init_dt_reserve_memory_arch() takes no-map to mean memblock_remove().
We trigger the removing via early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem() in
arch/arm64/mm/init.c. This happens later than before, but its before the
crashkernel and cma ranges get reserved.

One difference I can see is that before we avoided memblock_remove()ing ranges
that were also in memblock.nomap. This was to avoid the ACPI tables getting
mapped as device memory by mistake, this is fixed by [1]. Now these ranges are
published in /proc/iomem as 'reserved' and won't get covered by a
reserved-memory node, and so we don't need to check memblock.nomap when
memblock_remove()ing.


The only odd thing I can see is for a (mythical?) pure-ACPI system. The EFI stub
will create a DT with a chosen node containing pointers to the memory map and
the efi command line. Now such as system may also grow a /reserved-memory node
after kdump. I don't think this is a problem, but it may not match how an
acpi-only system reserves memory. (how does that work?)


> [1] "arm64: mark reserved memblock regions explicitly in iomem"
>     
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-August/450433.html

This is queued in Will's arm64/for-next/core,

> [2] "efi: arm64: treat regions with WT/WC set but WB cleared as memory"
>     
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-August/451491.html

This is queued in tip, but I can't see why kdump depends on it. It only has an
effect if the uefi memory map has !WB regions that linux needs to use.



Thanks,

James


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Reply via email to