[PATCHv3] powerpc/crashkernel: take "mem=" option into account

[Hari Bathini]

Hello Pingfan,

Thanks for the patch..

On 19/02/20 7:48 PM, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> 'mem=" option is an easy way to put high pressure on memory during some
> test. Hence after applying the memory limit, instead of total mem, the
> actual usable memory should be considered when reserving mem for
> crashkernel. Otherwise the boot up may experience OOM issue.
> 
> E.g. it would reserve 4G prior to the change and 512M afterward, if passing
> crashkernel="2G-4G:384M,4G-16G:512M,16G-64G:1G,64G-128G:2G,128G-:4G", and
> mem=5G on a 256G machine.
> 
> This issue is powerpc specific because it puts higher priority on fadump
> and kdump reservation than on "mem=". Referring the following code:
> 	if (fadump_reserve_mem() == 0)
> 		reserve_crashkernel();
> 	...
> 	/* Ensure that total memory size is page-aligned. */
> 	limit = ALIGN(memory_limit ?: memblock_phys_mem_size(), PAGE_SIZE);
> 	memblock_enforce_memory_limit(limit);
> 
> While on other arches, the effect of "mem=" takes a higher priority and pass
> through memblock_phys_mem_size() before calling reserve_crashkernel().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans at gmail.com>
> To: linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
> Cc: Hari Bathini <hbathini at linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au>
> Cc: kexec at lists.infradead.org
> ---
> v2 -> v3: improve commit log
>  arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec.c | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec.c
> index c4ed328..eec96dc 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec.c
> @@ -114,11 +114,12 @@ void machine_kexec(struct kimage *image)
>  
>  void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>  {
> -	unsigned long long crash_size, crash_base;
> +	unsigned long long crash_size, crash_base, total_mem_sz;
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	total_mem_sz = memory_limit ? memory_limit : memblock_phys_mem_size();
>  	/* use common parsing */
> -	ret = parse_crashkernel(boot_command_line, memblock_phys_mem_size(),
> +	ret = parse_crashkernel(boot_command_line, total_mem_sz,
>  			&crash_size, &crash_base);
>  	if (ret == 0 && crash_size > 0) {
>  		crashk_res.start = crash_base;

memory_limit is adjusted after this with the below snippet:

        /* Crash kernel trumps memory limit */
        if (memory_limit && memory_limit <= crashk_res.end) {                           
                memory_limit = crashk_res.end + 1;
                printk("Adjusted memory limit for crashkernel, now 0x%llx\n",           
                       memory_limit);                                                   
        } 

So, either the above snippet must be dropped or the print below should use an updated total_mem_sz
based on adjusted memory_limit. I would prefer the latter..

> @@ -185,7 +186,7 @@ void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>  			"for crashkernel (System RAM: %ldMB)\n",
>  			(unsigned long)(crash_size >> 20),
>  			(unsigned long)(crashk_res.start >> 20),
> -			(unsigned long)(memblock_phys_mem_size() >> 20));
> +			(unsigned long)(total_mem_sz >> 20));
>  
>  	if (!memblock_is_region_memory(crashk_res.start, crash_size) ||
>  	    memblock_reserve(crashk_res.start, crash_size)) {
> 

-- 
- Hari