[PATCH 18/19] arm64: kdump: update a kernel doc

[AKASHI Takahiro]

On 01/20/2016 11:49 AM, Dave Young wrote:
> On 01/19/16 at 02:01pm, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 09:45:53PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>>> On 01/19/16 at 12:51pm, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 08:28:48PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>>>>> On 01/19/16 at 02:35pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/19/2016 10:43 AM, Dave Young wrote:
>>>>>>> X86 takes another way in latest kexec-tools and kexec_file_load, that is
>>>>>>> recreating E820 table and pass it to kexec/kdump kernel, if the entries
>>>>>>> are over E820 limitation then turn to use setup_data list for remain
>>>>>>> entries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks. I will visit x86 code again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it is X86 specific. Personally I think device tree property is
>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think so?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure it is the best way. For X86 we run into problem with
>>>>> memmap= design, one example is pci domain X (X>1) need the pci memory
>>>>> ranges being passed to kdump kernel. When we passed reserved ranges in /proc/iomem
>>>>> to 2nd kernel we find that cmdline[] array is not big enough.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how PCI ranges relate to the memory map used for normal
>>>> memory (i.e. RAM), though I'm probably missing some caveat with the way
>>>> ACPI and UEFI describe PCI. Why does memmap= affect PCI memory?
>>>
>>> Here is the old patch which was rejected in kexec-tools:
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2013-February/007924.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the kernel got the rest of its system topology from DT, the PCI
>>>> regions would be described there.
>>>
>>> Yes, if kdump kernel use same DT as 1st kernel.
>>
>> Other than for testing purposes, I don't see why you'd pass the kdump
>> kernel a DTB inconsistent with that the 1st kernel was passsed (other
>> than some proerties under /chosen).
>>
>> We added /sys/firmware/fdt specifically to allow the kexec tools to get
>> the exact DTB the first kernel used. There's no reason for tools to have
>> to make something up.
>
> Agreed, but kexec-tools has an option to pass in any dtb files. Who knows
> how one will use it unless dropping the option and use /sys/firmware/fdt
> unconditionally.

As a matter of fact, specifying proper command line parameters as well as
dtb is partly users' responsibility for kdump to work correctly.
(especially for BE kernel)

> If we choose to implement kexec_file_load only in kernel, the interfaces
> provided are kernel, initrd and cmdline. We can always use same dtb.

I would say that we can always use the same dtb even with kexec_load
from user's perspective. Right?
(The difference is whether changes are made by kernel itself or kexec-tools.)

>>
>>>>> Do you think for arm64 only usable memory is necessary to let kdump kernel
>>>>> know? I'm curious about how arm64 kernel get all memory layout from boot loader,
>>>>> via UEFI memmap?
>>>>
>>>> When booted via EFI, we use the EFI memory map. The EFI stub handles
>>>> acquring the relevant information and passing that to the first kernel
>>>> in the DTB (see Documentation/arm/uefi.txt).
>>>
>>> Ok, thanks for the pointer. So in dt we are just have uefi memmap infomation
>>> instead of memory nodes details..
>>
>> When booted via EFI, yes.
>>
>> For NUMA topology in !ACPI kernels, we might need to also retain and
>> parse memory nodes, but only for toplogy information. The kernel would
>> still only use memory as described by the EFI memory map.
>>
>> There's a horrible edge case I've spotted if performing a chain of
>> cross-endian kexecs: LE -> BE -> LE, as the BE kernel would have to
>> respect the EFI memory map so as to avoid corrupting it for the
>> subsequent LE kernel. Other than this I believe everything should just
>> work.
>
> Firmware do not know kernel endianniess, kernel should respect firmware
> maps and adapt to it, it sounds like a generic issue not specfic to kexec.

On arm64, a kernel image header has a bit field to specify the image's endianness.
Anyway, our current implementation replies on a user-supplied dtb to start BE kernel.

>>
>>>> A kexec'd kernel should simply inherit that. So long as the DTB and/or
>>>> UEFI tables in memory are the same, it would be the same as a cold boot.
>>>
>>> For kexec all memory ranges are same, for kdump we need use original reserved
>>> range with crashkernel= as usable memory and all other orignal usable ranges
>>> are not usable anymore.
>>
>> Sure. This is what I believe we should expose with an additional
>> property under /chosen, while keeping everything else pristine.
>>
>> The crash kernel can then limit itself to that region, while it would
>> have the information of the full memory map (which it could log and/or
>> use to drive other dumping).
>
> In this way kernel should be aware it is a kdump booting, it is doable though
> I feel it is better for kdump kernel in a black box with infomations it
> can use just like the 1st kernel. Things here is where we choose to cook
> the memory infomation in boot loader or in kernel itself.
>
>>
>>> Is it possible to modify uefi memmap for kdump case?
>>
>> Technically it would be possible, however I don't think it's necessary,
>> and I think it would be disadvantageous to do so.
>>
>> Describing the range(s) the crash kernel can use in separate properties
>> under /chosen has a number of advantages.
>
> Ok, I got the points. We have a is_kdump_kernel() by checking if there is
> elfcorehdr_addr kernel cmdline. This is mainly for some drivers which
> do not work well in kdump kernel some uncertain reasons. But ideally I
> think kernel should handle things just like in 1st kernel and avoid to use
> it.

So I'm not still sure about what are advantages of a property under /chosen
over "memmap=" kernel parameter.
Both are simple and can have the same effect with minimizing changes to dtb.
(But if, in the latter case, we have to provide *all* the memory-related information
through "memmap=" parameters, it would be much complicated.)

-Takahiro AKASHI

>>
>>>> In the !EFI case, we use the memory nodes in the DTB. Only in this case
>>>> could usable-memory properties in memory nodes make sense. I'd prefer a
>>>> uniform property under /chosen for both cases.
>>>
>>> We stil use same DTB, need to modify the DT and update the usable and unusable
>>> nodes for kdump?
>>
>> We'd have a (slightly) modified DTB that contained additional properties
>> describing the range(s) reserved for use by the crash kernel.
>>
>> Other than those properties under /chosen (e.g. the command line, initrd
>> pointers if any), it would be the original DTB.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>
> Thanks
> Dave
>