Re: [PATCH v18 02/17] x86/setup: Move xen_pv_domain() check and insert_resource() to setup_arch()
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Date: 2021-12-23 17:26:13
Also in:
kexec, linux-devicetree, linux-doc, lkml
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 09:08:05PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
From: Chen Zhou <redacted> We will make the functions reserve_crashkernel() as generic, the xen_pv_domain() check in reserve_crashkernel() is relevant only to x86,
Why is that so? Is Xen-PV x86-only?
the same as insert_resource() in reserve_crashkernel[_low]().
Why?
Looking at
0212f9159694 ("x86: Add Crash kernel low reservation")
it *surprisingly* explains why that resources thing is being added:
We need to add another range in /proc/iomem like "Crash kernel low",
so kexec-tools could find that info and append to kdump kernel
command line.
Then,
157752d84f5d ("kexec: use Crash kernel for Crash kernel low")
renamed it because, as it states, kexec-tools was taught to handle
multiple resources of the same name.
So why does kexec-tools on arm *not* need those iomem resources? How
does it parse the ranges there? Questions over questions...
So last time I told you to sit down and take your time with this cleanup.
From reading this here, it doesn't look like it. Rather, it looks like
hastily done in a hurry and hurrying stuff doesn't help you one bit - it
actually makes it worse.
Your commit messages need to explain *why* a change is being done and
why is that ok. This one doesn't.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1120,7 +1109,17 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) * Reserve memory for crash kernel after SRAT is parsed so that it * won't consume hotpluggable memory. */ - reserve_crashkernel(); +#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE + if (xen_pv_domain()) + pr_info("Ignoring crashkernel for a Xen PV domain\n");
This is wrong - the check is currently being done inside
reserve_crashkernel(), *after* it has parsed a crashkernel= cmdline
correctly - and not before.
Your change would print on Xen PV, regardless of whether it has received
crashkernel= on the cmdline or not.
This is exactly why I say that making those functions generic and shared
might not be such a good idea, after all, because then you'd have to
sprinkle around arch-specific stuff.
One of the ways how to address this particular case here would be:
1. Add a x86-specific wrapper around parse_crashkernel() which does
all the parsing. When that wrapper finishes, you should have parsed
everything that has crashkernel= on the cmdline.
2. At the end of that wrapper, you do arch-specific checks and setup
like the xen_pv_domain() one.
3. Now, you do reserve_crashkernel(), if those checks pass.
The question is, whether the flow on arm64 can do the same. Probably but
it needs careful auditing.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel