lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] x86/gart/kcore: Exclude GART aperture from kcore
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:17 AM Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 01/23/19 at 10:50pm, Kairui Song wrote:
> > > > int fix_aperture __initdata = 1;
> > > >
> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE
> > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE) || defined(CONFIG_PROC_KCORE)
> > > > /*
> > > > * If the first kernel maps the aperture over e820 RAM, the kdump kernel will
> > > > * use the same range because it will remain configured in the northbridge.
> > > > @@ -66,7 +67,7 @@ int fix_aperture __initdata = 1;
> > > > */
> > > > static unsigned long aperture_pfn_start, aperture_page_count;
> > > >
> > > > -static int gart_oldmem_pfn_is_ram(unsigned long pfn)
> > > > +static int gart_mem_pfn_is_ram(unsigned long pfn)
> > > > {
> > > > return likely((pfn < aperture_pfn_start) ||
> > > > (pfn >= aperture_pfn_start + aperture_page_count));
> > > > @@ -76,7 +77,12 @@ static void exclude_from_vmcore(u64 aper_base, u32 aper_order)
> > >
> > > Shouldn't this function name be changed? It's not only handling vmcore
> > > stuff any more, but also kcore. And this function is not excluding, but
> > > resgistering.
> > >
> > > Other than this, it looks good to me.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Baoquan
> > >
> >
> > Good suggestion, it's good to change this function name too to avoid
> > any misleading. This patch hasn't got any other reviews recently, I'll
> > update it shortly.
>
> There's more.
>
> These two are doing the same thing:
> register_mem_pfn_is_ram
> register_oldmem_pfn_is_ram
>
> Need remove one of them and put it in a right place. Furthermore, may
> need see if there's existing function which is used to register a
> function to a hook.
>
> Secondly, exclude_from_vmcore() is not excluding anthing, it's only
> registering a function which is used to judge if oldmem/pfn is ram. Need
> rename it.
>
> Thanks
> Baoquan

Thanks a lot for the review! I've sent V3, using a different approach.
It's true repeating the hook infrastructure cause duplication, but I
see vmcore/kcore didn't share much code, so instead of sharing a
common hook infrastructure / registering entry, I used a new kcore
memory mapping list enum type to fix it, it also introduced less code.
Please have a look at V3, let me know how you think about it, thanks!


--
Best Regards,
Kairui Song

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-19 09:02    [W:0.050 / U:5.508 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site