On 06/29/2020 01:55 PM, Hari Bathini wrote:
>
>
> On 28/06/20 7:44 am, piliu wrote:
>> Hi Hari,
>
> Hi Pingfan,
>
>>
>> After a quick through for this series, I have a few question/comment on
>> this patch for the time being. Pls see comment inline.
>>
>> On 06/27/2020 03:05 AM, Hari Bathini wrote:
>>> crashkernel region could have an overlap with special memory regions
>>> like opal, rtas, tce-table & such. These regions are referred to as
>>> exclude memory ranges. Setup this ranges during image probe in order
>>> to avoid them while finding the buffer for different kdump segments.
>
> [...]
>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Use the locate_mem_hole logic in kexec_add_buffer() for regular
>>> + * kexec_file_load syscall
>>> + */
>>> + if (kbuf->image->type != KEXEC_TYPE_CRASH)
>>> + return 0;
>> Can the ranges overlap [crashk_res.start, crashk_res.end]? Otherwise
>> there is no requirement for @exclude_ranges.
>
> The ranges like rtas, opal are loaded by f/w. They almost always overlap with
> crashkernel region. So, @exclude_ranges is required to support kdump.
f/w passes rtas/opal as service, then must f/w mark these ranges as
fdt_reserved_mem in order to make kernel aware not to use these ranges?
Otherwise kernel memory allocation besides kdump can also overwrite
these ranges.
Hmm, revisiting reserve_crashkernel(). It seems not to take any reserved
memory into consider except kernel text. Could it work based on memblock
allocator?
Thanks,
Pingfan
>
>> I guess you have a design for future. If not true, then it is better to
>> fold the condition "if (kbuf->image->type != KEXEC_TYPE_CRASH)" into the
>> caller and rename this function to better distinguish use cases between
>> kexec and kdump
>
> Yeah, this condition will be folded. I have a follow-up patch for that
> explaining
> why kexec case should also be folded. Will try to add that to this series for
> v2.
>
> Thanks
> Hari
>
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
