[PATCH 2/2] powerpc/fadump: fix additional param memory reservation for HASH MMU

[Hari Bathini]

On 04/02/25 10:58 am, Avnish Chouhan wrote:
> On 2025-01-31 20:44, Hari Bathini wrote:
>> On 23/01/25 7:54 pm, Avnish Chouhan wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-23 15:26, Hari Bathini wrote:
>>>> On 20/01/25 11:05 pm, Sourabh Jain wrote:
>>>>> Commit 683eab94da75bc ("powerpc/fadump: setup additional parameters 
>>>>> for
>>>>> dump capture kernel") introduced the additional parameter feature in
>>>>> fadump for HASH MMU with the understanding that GRUB does not use the
>>>>> memory area between 640MB and 768MB for its operation.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the patch ("powerpc: increase MIN RMA size for CAS
>>>>> negotiation") changes the MIN RMA size to 768MB, allowing GRUB to use
>>>>> memory up to 768MB. This makes the fadump reservation for the 
>>>>> additional
>>>>> parameter feature for HASH MMU unreliable.
>>>>>
>>>>> To address this, adjust the memory range for the additional 
>>>>> parameter in
>>>>> fadump for HASH MMU. This will ensure that GRUB does not overwrite the
>>>>> memory reserved for fadump's additional parameter in HASH MMU.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The new policy for the memory range for the additional parameter in 
>>>>> HASH
>>>>> MMU is that the first memory block must be larger than the MIN_RMA 
>>>>> size,
>>>>> as the bootloader can use memory up to the MIN_RMA size. The range
>>>>> should be between MIN_RMA and the RMA size (ppc64_rma_size), and it 
>>>>> must
>>>>> not overlap with the fadump reserved area.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, even memory above MIN_RMA is used by the bootloader except for
>>>> 640MB to 768MB (assuming RMA size is >768MB). So, how does this change
>>>> guarantee that the bootloader is not using memory reserved for 
>>>> bootargs?
>>>>
>>>> Avnish, earlier, bootloader was using RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE (128MB) 
>>>> starting
>>>> top-down at 768MB earlier. With MIN_RMA changed to 768MB, is bootloader
>>>> still using the concept of RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE to set aside some memory
>>>> for kernel to use. If yes, where exactly is it allocating this space
>>>> now? Also, rtas instantiates top-down at 768MB. Would that not have
>>>> a conflict with grub allocations without RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE at 768MB?
>>>>
>>>> - Hari
>>>
>>> Hi Hari,
>>
>> Hi Avnish,
>>
>>> The RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE is the space left aside by Grub is within the 
>>> MIN_RMA size. Grub won't use memory beyond the MIN_RMA. With this 
>>> change, we haven't changed the RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE behavior. Grub will 
>>> still keep the 128 MB space in MIN_RMA for loading stock kernel and 
>>> initrd.
>>
>> IIUC, you mean, 640MB to 768MB is not used by Grub even if MIN_RMA
>> is at 768MB? If that is true, this change is not needed, as fadump
>> could still use the memory between 640MB to 768MB, right?
>> Am I missing something here..
> 
> Hari,
> 
> No. As we are changing MIN_RMA to 768 MB, GRUB can use memory till 768 
> MB if required.

Does that mean 'linux_rmo_save' related code in
grub-core/kern/ieee1275/init.c is going to be dead code after this
change. Also, does this imply, there isn't going to be any
RUNTIME_MIN_SPACE support for linux in grub?

- Hari