visible memory seems wrong in kexec crash dump kernel

[Michael Ellerman]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:30:50AM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 07/12/2013 04:59 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> >On 07/12/2013 03:08 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> >
> >>I turned on the instrumentation in early_init_dt_scan_memory() and got
> >>the following when jumping to the capture kernel:
> >>
> >>memory scan node memory, reg size 16, data: 0 0 2 0,
> >>- 0 , 200000000
> >>
> >>That 0x200000000 matches the fact that I'm seeing 8GB of memory
> >>available in the recovery kernel.
> >>
> >>If I boot the original kernel with "crashkernel=224M at 32M", should I
> >>expect that only 224MB is marked as "linux,usable-memory" in the
> >>recovery kernel?
> >
> >I started looking at the kexec side of things, and I noticed something a
> >bit odd. In most places dealing with the device tree in kexec it accepts
> >either "memory" or "memory@" for the memory node name. In
> >add_usable_mem_property() in arch/ppc64/fs2dt.c it seems to only accept
> >"memory@".
> >
> >Is this expected behaviour? It seems to be the same in current git
> >versions of kexec-tools.
> >
> >On my system I see "/proc/device-tree/memory".
> >
> >If I modify add_usable_mem_property() to also accept "/memory" then my
> >recovery kernel boots up with
> >
> >physicalMemorySize = 0x10000000
> >
> >which is 256MB (which is still a bit odd since I specified 224MB for the
> >crashkernel).
> >
> >However, it then hits the BUG() call at the end of mark_bootmem() in
> >mm/bootmem.c.
> 
> One final thing and I'll stop replying to myself. :)
> 
> It looks like the problem is that some board-specific freescale code
> was calling lmb_reserve() with a base address in the 4GB range.  It
> seems odd that lmb_reserve() didn't throw some kind of error when
> the recovery kernel was supposed to be limited to 224MB.
> 
> Rather than try and fix the bug, I turned off the (unneeded) config
> options related to the above lmb_reserve() calls and was able to
> successfully access the information I needed via /dev/oldmem.
> 
> The upshot is that there seems to be a number of things that could
> be improved:
> 
> 1) kexec should accept "/memory" and not just "/memory@"

Yeah probably, I think folks tend to use "/memory at 0" even if they only
have a single memory node. But that does sound like a bug in kexec.

> 2) lmb_reserve() should really respect the crashkernel memory limit

It's been replaced in mainline, so you'd have to check what the current
code does in that situation.

> 3) the freescale stuff really shouldn't assume it can map things
> wherever it feels like

Agreed :)

cheers