Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1432148 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer.

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from  kexec_add_buffer. Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> - 2016-06-27 18:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer. Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-06-27 18:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer. Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-06-27 19:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from  kexec_add_buffer. Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> - 2016-06-27 22:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from  kexec_add_buffer. Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> - 2016-06-28 21:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer. Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-06-29 00:20 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from  kexec_add_buffer. Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> - 2016-06-29 21:50 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer. Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-06-29 23:20 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from  kexec_add_buffer. Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> - 2016-06-30 17:50 +0200
                  Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer. Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-06-30 19:40 +0200
                    Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from  kexec_add_buffer. Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> - 2016-06-30 23:40 +0200

#1432148 — Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer.

On 06/23/16 at 12:37pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 23 Juni 2016, 01:44:07 schrieb Dave Young:
> > Hmm, hold on. For declaring a struct in a header file, comment should be
> > just after each fields, like below, your format is for a function instead:
> > struct pci_slot {
> >         struct pci_bus *bus;            /* The bus this slot is on */
> >         struct list_head list;          /* node in list of slots on this
> > bus */ struct hotplug_slot *hotplug;   /* Hotplug info (migrate over
> > time) */ unsigned char number;           /* PCI_SLOT(pci_dev->devfn) */
> > struct kobject kobj;
> > };
> 
> The comment style you mention above is not extractable documentation. The 
> style I used is what is described in section "kernel-doc for structs, 
> unions, enums, and typedefs" in Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt.

You are right and I was wrong!

>  
> > BTW, what is @size? there's no size field in kexec_buf. I think it is not
> > necessary to add these comment, they are easy to understand. If you really
> > want, please rewrite them correctly, for example "image" description is
> > wrong. It is not only for searching memory only, top_down description is
> > also bad.
> 
> Sorry, I moved these comments from kexec_locate_mem_hole but forgot to 
> rename the parameters to what they are called in struct kexec_buf. @size 
> should have been @memsz (other fields also have wrong names, I'll fix them 
> as well). The image description is correct in the context of where struct 
> kexec_buf is used and explains what it will be used for in the function 
> taking kexec_buf as an argument. It is not meant as a general description of 
> the purpose of struct kimage. What is bad about the description of top_down?

It is not clear enough to me, I personally think the original one in
source code is better:
/* allocate from top of memory hole */

> 
> I decided to add these comments because struct kexec_buf is now part of the 
> kernel API for kexec. kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt says:
> 
> > We definitely need kernel-doc formatted documentation for functions
> > that are exported to loadable modules using EXPORT_SYMBOL.
> > 
> > We also look to provide kernel-doc formatted documentation for
> > functions externally visible to other kernel files (not marked
> > "static").
> > 
> > We also recommend providing kernel-doc formatted documentation
> > for private (file "static") routines, for consistency of kernel
> > source code layout.  But this is lower priority and at the
> > discretion of the MAINTAINER of that kernel source file.
> 
> If you think they are not necessary or just add clutter I can leave them 
> out.

I'm fine with either way.

THanks
Dave

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1432153 — Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer.

Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 00:19:48 schrieb Dave Young:
> On 06/23/16 at 12:37pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 23 Juni 2016, 01:44:07 schrieb Dave Young:
> > What is bad about the description of top_down?
> It is not clear enough to me, I personally think the original one in
> source code is better:
> /* allocate from top of memory hole */

Actually I realized there's some discrepancy in how the x86 code uses 
top_down and how I need it to work in powerpc. This may be what is confusing 
about my comment and the existing comment.

x86 always walks memory from bottom to top but if top_down is true, in each 
memory region it will allocate the memory hole in the highest address within 
that region. I don't know why it is done that way, though.

On powerpc, the memory walk itself should be from top to bottom, as well as 
the memory hole allocation within each memory region.

Should I add a separate top_down argument to kexec_locate_mem_hole to 
control if the memory walk should be from top to bottom, and then the 
bottom_up member of struct kexec_buf controls where inside each memory 
region the memory hole will be allocated?

-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1432156 — Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer.

Am Montag, 27 Juni 2016, 13:37:58 schrieb Thiago Jung Bauermann:
> Should I add a separate top_down argument to kexec_locate_mem_hole to
> control if the memory walk should be from top to bottom, and then the
> bottom_up member of struct kexec_buf controls where inside each memory
> region the memory hole will be allocated?

Er, "...the bottom_up member of struct kexec_buf..." should read "...the 
top_down member of struct kexec buf...".

-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1432298

Please ignore previous reply, I mistakenly send a broken mail without
subject, sorry about it. Resend the reply here.

On 06/27/16 at 01:37pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 00:19:48 schrieb Dave Young:
> > On 06/23/16 at 12:37pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, 23 Juni 2016, 01:44:07 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > What is bad about the description of top_down?
> > It is not clear enough to me, I personally think the original one in
> > source code is better:
> > /* allocate from top of memory hole */
> 
> Actually I realized there's some discrepancy in how the x86 code uses 
> top_down and how I need it to work in powerpc. This may be what is confusing 
> about my comment and the existing comment.
> 
> x86 always walks memory from bottom to top but if top_down is true, in each 
> memory region it will allocate the memory hole in the highest address within 
> that region. I don't know why it is done that way, though.

I think we did not meaning to do this, considering kdump we have only
one crashkernel region for searching (crashk_res) so it is fine.
For kexec maybe changing the walking function to accept top_down is
reasonable.
 
Ccing Vivek see if he can remember something..

> 
> On powerpc, the memory walk itself should be from top to bottom, as well as 
> the memory hole allocation within each memory region.
> 
> Should I add a separate top_down argument to kexec_locate_mem_hole to 
> control if the memory walk should be from top to bottom, and then the 
> bottom_up member of struct kexec_buf controls where inside each memory 
> region the memory hole will be allocated?
> 
> -- 
> []'s
> Thiago Jung Bauermann
> IBM Linux Technology Center
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1433231

On 06/27/16 at 04:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> Please ignore previous reply, I mistakenly send a broken mail without
> subject, sorry about it. Resend the reply here.
> 
> On 06/27/16 at 01:37pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 00:19:48 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > On 06/23/16 at 12:37pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > > Am Donnerstag, 23 Juni 2016, 01:44:07 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > What is bad about the description of top_down?
> > > It is not clear enough to me, I personally think the original one in
> > > source code is better:
> > > /* allocate from top of memory hole */
> > 
> > Actually I realized there's some discrepancy in how the x86 code uses 
> > top_down and how I need it to work in powerpc. This may be what is confusing 
> > about my comment and the existing comment.
> > 
> > x86 always walks memory from bottom to top but if top_down is true, in each 
> > memory region it will allocate the memory hole in the highest address within 
> > that region. I don't know why it is done that way, though.
> 
> I think we did not meaning to do this, considering kdump we have only
> one crashkernel region for searching (crashk_res) so it is fine.
> For kexec maybe changing the walking function to accept top_down is
> reasonable.
>  
> Ccing Vivek see if he can remember something..
> 
> > 
> > On powerpc, the memory walk itself should be from top to bottom, as well as 
> > the memory hole allocation within each memory region.

What is the particular reason in powerpc for a mandatory top to bottom
walking?

> > 
> > Should I add a separate top_down argument to kexec_locate_mem_hole to 
> > control if the memory walk should be from top to bottom, and then the 
> > bottom_up member of struct kexec_buf controls where inside each memory 
> > region the memory hole will be allocated?

Using one argument for both sounds more reasonable than using a separate
argument for memory walk..

Thanks
Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1433357 — Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer.

Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 15:20:55 schrieb Dave Young:
> On 06/27/16 at 04:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > Please ignore previous reply, I mistakenly send a broken mail without
> > subject, sorry about it. Resend the reply here.
> > 
> > On 06/27/16 at 01:37pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 00:19:48 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > On 06/23/16 at 12:37pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > > > Am Donnerstag, 23 Juni 2016, 01:44:07 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > > What is bad about the description of top_down?
> > > > 
> > > > It is not clear enough to me, I personally think the original one in
> > > > source code is better:
> > > > /* allocate from top of memory hole */
> > > 
> > > Actually I realized there's some discrepancy in how the x86 code uses
> > > top_down and how I need it to work in powerpc. This may be what is
> > > confusing about my comment and the existing comment.
> > > 
> > > x86 always walks memory from bottom to top but if top_down is true, in
> > > each memory region it will allocate the memory hole in the highest
> > > address within that region. I don't know why it is done that way,
> > > though.
> > 
> > I think we did not meaning to do this, considering kdump we have only
> > one crashkernel region for searching (crashk_res) so it is fine.
> > For kexec maybe changing the walking function to accept top_down is
> > reasonable.
> > 
> > Ccing Vivek see if he can remember something..
> > 
> > > On powerpc, the memory walk itself should be from top to bottom, as
> > > well as the memory hole allocation within each memory region.
> 
> What is the particular reason in powerpc for a mandatory top to bottom
> walking?

I'm walking unreserved memory ranges, so reservations made low in memory 
(such as the reservation for the initrd) may create a memory hole that is a 
lot lower than the true memory limit where I want to allocate from (768 MB). 
In this situation, allocating at the highest address in the lowest free 
memory range will allocate the buffer very low in memory, and in that case 
top_down doesn't mean much.

Walking memory from lowest to highest address but then allocating memory at 
the highest address inside the memory range is peculiar and surprising. Is 
there a particular reason for it?

If it's an accident and doesn't affect x86, I'd suggest that top_down should
have its expected behavior, which (at least for me) is: allocate from the
highest available memory address within the desired range.

In any case, my patch series allows each architecture to define what
top_down should mean. It doesn't change the behavior in x86, since
the default implementation of arch_kexec_walk_mem ignores
kexec_buf.top_down, and allows powerpc to take top_down into account
when walking memory.

> > > Should I add a separate top_down argument to kexec_locate_mem_hole to
> > > control if the memory walk should be from top to bottom, and then the
> > > bottom_up member of struct kexec_buf controls where inside each memory
> > > region the memory hole will be allocated?
> 
> Using one argument for both sounds more reasonable than using a separate
> argument for memory walk..

I agree. This patch doesn't use a separate top_down argument, it's the same
patch I sent earlier except that the comments to struct kexec_buf are in
patch 2/9. What do you think?

-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center


Subject: [PATCH 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from
 kexec_add_buffer.

kexec_locate_mem_hole will be used by the PowerPC kexec_file_load
implementation to find free memory for the purgatory stack.

Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
---
 include/linux/kexec.h |  1 +
 kernel/kexec_file.c   | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/kexec.h b/include/linux/kexec.h
index e16d845d587f..2b34e69db679 100644
--- a/include/linux/kexec.h
+++ b/include/linux/kexec.h
@@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ struct kexec_buf {
 
 int __weak arch_kexec_walk_mem(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
 			       int (*func)(u64, u64, void *));
+int kexec_locate_mem_hole(struct kexec_buf *kbuf);
 #endif /* CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE */
 
 struct kimage {
diff --git a/kernel/kexec_file.c b/kernel/kexec_file.c
index b1f1f6402518..445d66add8ca 100644
--- a/kernel/kexec_file.c
+++ b/kernel/kexec_file.c
@@ -449,6 +449,23 @@ int __weak arch_kexec_walk_mem(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
 		return walk_system_ram_res(0, ULONG_MAX, kbuf, func);
 }
 
+/**
+ * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory to load segment or use in purgatory
+ * @kbuf:	Parameters for the memory search.
+ *
+ * On success, kbuf->mem will have the start address of the memory region found.
+ *
+ * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on error.
+ */
+int kexec_locate_mem_hole(struct kexec_buf *kbuf)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = arch_kexec_walk_mem(kbuf, locate_mem_hole_callback);
+
+	return ret == 1 ? 0 : -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
+}
+
 /*
  * Helper function for placing a buffer in a kexec segment. This assumes
  * that kexec_mutex is held.
@@ -493,11 +510,9 @@ int kexec_add_buffer(struct kimage *image, char *buffer, unsigned long bufsz,
 	kbuf->top_down = top_down;
 
 	/* Walk the RAM ranges and allocate a suitable range for the buffer */
-	ret = arch_kexec_walk_mem(kbuf, locate_mem_hole_callback);
-	if (ret != 1) {
-		/* A suitable memory range could not be found for buffer */
-		return -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
-	}
+	ret = kexec_locate_mem_hole(kbuf);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
 	/* Found a suitable memory range */
 	ksegment = &image->segment[image->nr_segments];
-- 
1.9.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1434016

On 06/28/16 at 07:18pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 15:20:55 schrieb Dave Young:
> > On 06/27/16 at 04:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > > Please ignore previous reply, I mistakenly send a broken mail without
> > > subject, sorry about it. Resend the reply here.
> > > 
> > > On 06/27/16 at 01:37pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > > Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 00:19:48 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > > On 06/23/16 at 12:37pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > > > > Am Donnerstag, 23 Juni 2016, 01:44:07 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > > > What is bad about the description of top_down?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is not clear enough to me, I personally think the original one in
> > > > > source code is better:
> > > > > /* allocate from top of memory hole */
> > > > 
> > > > Actually I realized there's some discrepancy in how the x86 code uses
> > > > top_down and how I need it to work in powerpc. This may be what is
> > > > confusing about my comment and the existing comment.
> > > > 
> > > > x86 always walks memory from bottom to top but if top_down is true, in
> > > > each memory region it will allocate the memory hole in the highest
> > > > address within that region. I don't know why it is done that way,
> > > > though.
> > > 
> > > I think we did not meaning to do this, considering kdump we have only
> > > one crashkernel region for searching (crashk_res) so it is fine.
> > > For kexec maybe changing the walking function to accept top_down is
> > > reasonable.
> > > 
> > > Ccing Vivek see if he can remember something..
> > > 
> > > > On powerpc, the memory walk itself should be from top to bottom, as
> > > > well as the memory hole allocation within each memory region.
> > 
> > What is the particular reason in powerpc for a mandatory top to bottom
> > walking?
> 
> I'm walking unreserved memory ranges, so reservations made low in memory 
> (such as the reservation for the initrd) may create a memory hole that is a 
> lot lower than the true memory limit where I want to allocate from (768 MB). 
> In this situation, allocating at the highest address in the lowest free 
> memory range will allocate the buffer very low in memory, and in that case 
> top_down doesn't mean much.
> 
> Walking memory from lowest to highest address but then allocating memory at 
> the highest address inside the memory range is peculiar and surprising. Is 
> there a particular reason for it?

I do not know if there's some historic reason, personally I think it
should be an accident.

> 
> If it's an accident and doesn't affect x86, I'd suggest that top_down should
> have its expected behavior, which (at least for me) is: allocate from the
> highest available memory address within the desired range.

I tend to agree, but we need test it first to see if it breaks something.

> 
> In any case, my patch series allows each architecture to define what
> top_down should mean. It doesn't change the behavior in x86, since
> the default implementation of arch_kexec_walk_mem ignores
> kexec_buf.top_down, and allows powerpc to take top_down into account
> when walking memory.
> 
> > > > Should I add a separate top_down argument to kexec_locate_mem_hole to
> > > > control if the memory walk should be from top to bottom, and then the
> > > > bottom_up member of struct kexec_buf controls where inside each memory
> > > > region the memory hole will be allocated?
> > 
> > Using one argument for both sounds more reasonable than using a separate
> > argument for memory walk..
> 
> I agree. This patch doesn't use a separate top_down argument, it's the same
> patch I sent earlier except that the comments to struct kexec_buf are in
> patch 2/9. What do you think?

It looks good except one nitpick inline..

> 
> -- 
> []'s
> Thiago Jung Bauermann
> IBM Linux Technology Center
> 
> 
> Subject: [PATCH 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from
>  kexec_add_buffer.
> 
> kexec_locate_mem_hole will be used by the PowerPC kexec_file_load
> implementation to find free memory for the purgatory stack.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
> Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  include/linux/kexec.h |  1 +
>  kernel/kexec_file.c   | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/kexec.h b/include/linux/kexec.h
> index e16d845d587f..2b34e69db679 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kexec.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kexec.h
> @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ struct kexec_buf {
>  
>  int __weak arch_kexec_walk_mem(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
>  			       int (*func)(u64, u64, void *));
> +int kexec_locate_mem_hole(struct kexec_buf *kbuf);
>  #endif /* CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE */
>  
>  struct kimage {
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_file.c b/kernel/kexec_file.c
> index b1f1f6402518..445d66add8ca 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec_file.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec_file.c
> @@ -449,6 +449,23 @@ int __weak arch_kexec_walk_mem(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
>  		return walk_system_ram_res(0, ULONG_MAX, kbuf, func);
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory to load segment or use in purgatory

It is not necessary to use only for purgatory load..

> + * @kbuf:	Parameters for the memory search.
> + *
> + * On success, kbuf->mem will have the start address of the memory region found.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on error.
> + */
> +int kexec_locate_mem_hole(struct kexec_buf *kbuf)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = arch_kexec_walk_mem(kbuf, locate_mem_hole_callback);
> +
> +	return ret == 1 ? 0 : -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Helper function for placing a buffer in a kexec segment. This assumes
>   * that kexec_mutex is held.
> @@ -493,11 +510,9 @@ int kexec_add_buffer(struct kimage *image, char *buffer, unsigned long bufsz,
>  	kbuf->top_down = top_down;
>  
>  	/* Walk the RAM ranges and allocate a suitable range for the buffer */
> -	ret = arch_kexec_walk_mem(kbuf, locate_mem_hole_callback);
> -	if (ret != 1) {
> -		/* A suitable memory range could not be found for buffer */
> -		return -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
> -	}
> +	ret = kexec_locate_mem_hole(kbuf);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
>  
>  	/* Found a suitable memory range */
>  	ksegment = &image->segment[image->nr_segments];
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> 

Thanks
Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1434058 — Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer.

Am Mittwoch, 29 Juni 2016, 15:45:18 schrieb Dave Young:
> On 06/28/16 at 07:18pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 15:20:55 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > On 06/27/16 at 04:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > > Using one argument for both sounds more reasonable than using a
> > > separate
> > > argument for memory walk..
> > 
> > I agree. This patch doesn't use a separate top_down argument, it's the
> > same patch I sent earlier except that the comments to struct kexec_buf
> > are in patch 2/9. What do you think?
> 
> It looks good except one nitpick inline..
> 
>
> > +/**
> > + * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory to load segment or use in
> > purgatory
 
> It is not necessary to use only for purgatory load..

Ok, what about this?

/**
 * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory in a given kimage.


[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1434671

On 06/29/16 at 06:09pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 29 Juni 2016, 15:45:18 schrieb Dave Young:
> > On 06/28/16 at 07:18pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 15:20:55 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > On 06/27/16 at 04:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > Using one argument for both sounds more reasonable than using a
> > > > separate
> > > > argument for memory walk..
> > > 
> > > I agree. This patch doesn't use a separate top_down argument, it's the
> > > same patch I sent earlier except that the comments to struct kexec_buf
> > > are in patch 2/9. What do you think?
> > 
> > It looks good except one nitpick inline..
> > 
> >
> > > +/**
> > > + * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory to load segment or use in
> > > purgatory
>  
> > It is not necessary to use only for purgatory load..
> 
> Ok, what about this?
> 
> /**
>  * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory in a given kimage.

Hmm, a given kimage sounds not correct, I can not get a better way to
describe it. How about below with a little change to your previous one:

kexec_locate_mem_hole - find a free chunk of memory to load kexec segment.
In powerpc the memory chunk can also be used for the purgatory stack.

Thanks
Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1434757 — Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] kexec_file: Factor out kexec_locate_mem_hole from kexec_add_buffer.

Am Donnerstag, 30 Juni 2016, 11:41:19 schrieb Dave Young:
> On 06/29/16 at 06:09pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 29 Juni 2016, 15:45:18 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > On 06/28/16 at 07:18pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > > Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 15:20:55 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > > On 06/27/16 at 04:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > > It looks good except one nitpick inline..
> > > 
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory to load segment or use
> > > > in
> > > > purgatory
> > > 
> > > It is not necessary to use only for purgatory load..
> > 
> > Ok, what about this?
> > 
> > /**
> > 
> >  * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory in a given kimage.
> 
> Hmm, a given kimage sounds not correct, I can not get a better way to
> describe it. How about below with a little change to your previous one:
> 
> kexec_locate_mem_hole - find a free chunk of memory to load kexec segment.
> In powerpc the memory chunk can also be used for the purgatory stack.

That describes what the memory currently is used for. If powerpc or any 
other architecture starts to use the memory for something else, this comment 
would need to be updated. :-)

What the function really does is find free memory in the physical address 
space after the currently running kernel hands over control to whatever runs 
next. What that memory is used for is decided by the caller of the function.

Since (at least for now), the only things that run next are the purgatory 
and the next kernel, what about this?

kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory for the purgatory or the next 
kernel

[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1434860

On 06/30/16 at 01:08pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 30 Juni 2016, 11:41:19 schrieb Dave Young:
> > On 06/29/16 at 06:09pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, 29 Juni 2016, 15:45:18 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > On 06/28/16 at 07:18pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > > > Am Dienstag, 28 Juni 2016, 15:20:55 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > > > On 06/27/16 at 04:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > It looks good except one nitpick inline..
> > > > 
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory to load segment or use
> > > > > in
> > > > > purgatory
> > > > 
> > > > It is not necessary to use only for purgatory load..
> > > 
> > > Ok, what about this?
> > > 
> > > /**
> > > 
> > >  * kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory in a given kimage.
> > 
> > Hmm, a given kimage sounds not correct, I can not get a better way to
> > describe it. How about below with a little change to your previous one:
> > 
> > kexec_locate_mem_hole - find a free chunk of memory to load kexec segment.
> > In powerpc the memory chunk can also be used for the purgatory stack.
> 
> That describes what the memory currently is used for. If powerpc or any 
> other architecture starts to use the memory for something else, this comment 
> would need to be updated. :-)
> 
> What the function really does is find free memory in the physical address 
> space after the currently running kernel hands over control to whatever runs 
> next. What that memory is used for is decided by the caller of the function.
> 
> Since (at least for now), the only things that run next are the purgatory 
> and the next kernel, what about this?
> 
> kexec_locate_mem_hole - find free memory for the purgatory or the next 
> kernel

Ok, I'm fine with above version.

Thanks
Dave 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web