Prev: [PATCH 3/6] writeback: kill writeback_control.more_io
Next: [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] writeback: try to write older pages first
From: Eric W. Biederman on 22 Jul 2010 02:30
Amerigo Wang <amwang(a)redhat.com> writes:

> Currently KEXEC_SEGMENT_MAX is only 16 which is too small for machine with
> many memory ranges. Increase this hard limit to 1024 which is reasonably large,
> and change ->segment from a static array to a dynamically allocated memory.

???

This should be about segments in the executable being loaded. What
executable has one segment for each range of physical memory?

Not that generalizing this is a bad idea but with a comment that
seems entirely wrong I am wondering what the problem really is.

Eric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Eric W. Biederman on 22 Jul 2010 03:10
Cong Wang <amwang(a)redhat.com> writes:

> On 07/22/10 14:28, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Amerigo Wang<amwang(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> Currently KEXEC_SEGMENT_MAX is only 16 which is too small for machine with
>>> many memory ranges. Increase this hard limit to 1024 which is reasonably large,
>>> and change ->segment from a static array to a dynamically allocated memory.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> This should be about segments in the executable being loaded. What
>> executable has one segment for each range of physical memory?
>>
>> Not that generalizing this is a bad idea but with a comment that
>> seems entirely wrong I am wondering what the problem really is.
>>
>
> Ah, I think Neil should explain this.
>
> He made a patch which includes many memory ranges, caused kexec
> fails to load the kernel. Increasing this limit and the corresponding
> one in kexec-tools fixes the problem. His patch is not in upstream
> kexec-tools, AFAIK.
>
> However, even if we don't consider that patch, isn't 16 too small too?

Generally you just need one physical hunk for the code, maybe a second
for the initrd.

It is perfectly fine to raise the number of segments as it doesn't
affect the ABI, but it wants a good explanation of what kind of weird
application wants to write to all over memory when it is loaded.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Eric W. Biederman on 26 Jul 2010 08:30
Cong Wang <amwang(a)redhat.com> writes:

> So, what is a better number? 2048? :)

I was thinking something a little ridiculous like 10K or 64K.

Assuming the usage you care about is something like hibernate on a
machine with disjoint memory where you truly need one segment for
each memory region.

The only point of a limit at all once we introduce dynamic allocation
is to catch buggy apps.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Eric W. Biederman on 27 Jul 2010 14:30
Milton Miller <miltonm(a)bga.com> writes:

> [ Added kexec at lists.infradead.org and linuxppc-dev(a)lists.ozlabs.org ]
>
>>
>> Currently KEXEC_SEGMENT_MAX is only 16 which is too small for machine with
>> many memory ranges. When hibernate on a machine with disjoint memory we do
>> need one segment for each memory region. Increase this hard limit to 16K
>> which is reasonably large.
>>
>> And change ->segment from a static array to a dynamically allocated memory.
>>
>> Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman(a)redhat.com>
>> Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas(a)gmail.com>
>> Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm(a)xmission.com>
>> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang(a)redhat.com>
>>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
>> index ed31a29..f115585 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
>> @@ -131,10 +131,7 @@ static void copy_segments(unsigned long ind)
>> void kexec_copy_flush(struct kimage *image)
>> {
>> long i, nr_segments = image->nr_segments;
>> - struct kexec_segment ranges[KEXEC_SEGMENT_MAX];
>> -
>> - /* save the ranges on the stack to efficiently flush the icache */
>> - memcpy(ranges, image->segment, sizeof(ranges));
>> + struct kexec_segment range;
>
> I'm glad you found our copy on the stack and removed the stack overflow
> that comes with this bump, but ...
>
>>
>> /*
>> * After this call we may not use anything allocated in dynamic
>> @@ -148,9 +145,11 @@ void kexec_copy_flush(struct kimage *image)
>> * we need to clear the icache for all dest pages sometime,
>> * including ones that were in place on the original copy
>> */
>> - for (i = 0; i < nr_segments; i++)
>> - flush_icache_range((unsigned long)__va(ranges[i].mem),
>> - (unsigned long)__va(ranges[i].mem + ranges[i].memsz));
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_segments; i++) {
>> + memcpy(&range, &image->segment[i], sizeof(range));
>> + flush_icache_range((unsigned long)__va(range.mem),
>> + (unsigned long)__va(range.mem + range.memsz));
>> + }
>> }
>
> This is executed after the copy, so as it says,
> "we may not use anything allocated in dynamic memory".
>
> We could allocate control pages to copy the segment list into.
> Actually ppc64 doesn't use the existing control page, but that
> is only 4kB today.
>
> We need the list to icache flush all the pages in all the segments.
> The as the indirect list doesn't have pages that were allocated at
> their destination.

An interesting point.

> Or maybe the icache flush should be done in the generic code
> like it does for crash load segments?

Please. I don't quite understand the icache flush requirement.
But we really should not be looking at the segments in the
architecture specific code.

Ideally we would only keep the segment information around for
the duration of the kexec_load syscall and not have it when
it comes time to start the second kernel.

I am puzzled. We should be completely replacing the page tables so
can't we just do a global flush? Perhaps I am being naive about what
is required for a ppc flush.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [PATCH 3/6] writeback: kill writeback_control.more_io
Next: [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] writeback: try to write older pages first