Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:32:13 +0800 | From | Amerigo Wang <> | Subject | Re: [Patch 8/8] kexec: allow to shrink reserved memory |
| |
Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> writes: > > >> This patch implements shrinking the reserved memory for crash kernel, >> if it is more than enough. >> >> For example, if you have already reserved 128M, now you just want 100M, >> you can do: >> >> # echo $((100*1024*1024)) > /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size >> > > Getting closer (comments inline) > > Semantically this patch is non-contriversial and pretty > simple, but still needs a fair amount of review. Can > you put this patch at the front of your patch set. > >
Sure, I will do it when I resend them next time.
I add mm people into Cc. >> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/kexec.c >> =================================================================== >> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/kexec.c >> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/kexec.c >> @@ -1083,6 +1083,76 @@ void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs) >> } >> } >> >> +int kexec_crash_kernel_loaded(void) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + if (!mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex)) >> + return 1; >> > > We don't need trylock on this code path >
OK.
> >> + ret = kexec_crash_image != NULL; >> + mutex_unlock(&kexec_mutex); >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> +size_t get_crash_memory_size(void) >> +{ >> + size_t size; >> + if (!mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex)) >> + return 1; >> > > We don't need trylock on this code path > >
Hmm, crashk_res is a global struct, so other process can also change it... but currently no process does that, right?
>> + size = crashk_res.end - crashk_res.start + 1; >> + mutex_unlock(&kexec_mutex); >> + return size; >> +} >> + >> +int shrink_crash_memory(unsigned long new_size) >> +{ >> + struct page **pages; >> + int ret = 0; >> + int npages, i; >> + unsigned long addr; >> + unsigned long start, end; >> + void *vaddr; >> + >> + if (!mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex)) >> + return -EBUSY; >> > > We don't need trylock on this code path > > We are missing the check to see if the crash_kernel is loaded > under this lock instance. So I please move the kexec_crash_image != NULL > test inline here and kill the kexec_crash_kernel_loaded function. >
Ok, no problem.
> >> + start = crashk_res.start; >> + end = crashk_res.end; >> + >> + if (new_size >= end - start + 1) { >> + ret = -EINVAL; >> + if (new_size == end - start + 1) >> + ret = 0; >> + goto unlock; >> + } >> + >> + start = roundup(start, PAGE_SIZE); >> + end = roundup(start + new_size, PAGE_SIZE) - 1; >> + npages = (end + 1 - start ) / PAGE_SIZE; >> + >> + pages = kmalloc(sizeof(struct page *) * npages, GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!pages) { >> + ret = -ENOMEM; >> + goto unlock; >> + } >> + for (i = 0; i < npages; i++) { >> + addr = end + 1 + i * PAGE_SIZE; >> + pages[i] = virt_to_page(addr); >> + } >> + >> + vaddr = vm_map_ram(pages, npages, 0, PAGE_KERNEL); >> > > This is the wrong kernel call to use. I expect this needs to look > like a memory hotplug event. This does not put the pages into the > free page pool. >
Well, I also wanted to use an memory-hotplug API, but that will make the code depend on memory-hotplug, which certainly is not what we want...
I checked the mm code, actually what I need is an API which is similar to add_active_range(), but add_active_range() can't be used here since it is marked as "__init".
Do we have that kind of API in mm? I can't find one.
Thanks!
| |