On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 07:16:27PM +0000, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> Hi Changyuan,
>
> On Wed, Mar 19 2025, Changyuan Lyu wrote:
>
> > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <r...@kernel.org>
> >
> > Introduce APIs allowing KHO users to preserve memory across kexec and
> > get access to that memory after boot of the kexeced kernel
> >
> > kho_preserve_folio() - record a folio to be preserved over kexec
> > kho_restore_folio() - recreates the folio from the preserved memory
> > kho_preserve_phys() - record physically contiguous range to be
> > preserved over kexec.
> > kho_restore_phys() - recreates order-0 pages corresponding to the
> > preserved physical range
> >
> > The memory preservations are tracked by two levels of xarrays to manage
> > chunks of per-order 512 byte bitmaps. For instance the entire 1G order
> > of a 1TB x86 system would fit inside a single 512 byte bitmap. For
> > order 0 allocations each bitmap will cover 16M of address space. Thus,
> > for 16G of memory at most 512K of bitmap memory will be needed for order 0.
> >
> > At serialization time all bitmaps are recorded in a linked list of pages
> > for the next kernel to process and the physical address of the list is
> > recorded in KHO FDT.
> >
> > The next kernel then processes that list, reserves the memory ranges and
> > later, when a user requests a folio or a physical range, KHO restores
> > corresponding memory map entries.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe <j...@nvidia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <r...@kernel.org>
> > Co-developed-by: Changyuan Lyu <changyu...@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Changyuan Lyu <changyu...@google.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/kexec_handover.h | 38 +++
> > kernel/kexec_handover.c | 486 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 522 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> [...]
> > +int kho_preserve_phys(phys_addr_t phys, size_t size)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long pfn = PHYS_PFN(phys), end_pfn = PHYS_PFN(phys + size);
> > + unsigned int order = ilog2(end_pfn - pfn);
>
> This caught my eye when playing around with the code. It does not put
> any limit on the order, so it can exceed NR_PAGE_ORDERS. Also, when
I don't see a problem with this
> initializing the page after KHO, we pass the order directly to
> prep_compound_page() without sanity checking it. The next kernel might
> not support all the orders the current one supports. Perhaps something
> to fix?
And this needs to be fixed and we should refuse to create folios larger
than MAX_ORDER.
> > + unsigned long failed_pfn;
> > + int err = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!kho_enable)
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + down_read(&kho_out.tree_lock);
> > + if (kho_out.fdt) {
> > + err = -EBUSY;
> > + goto unlock;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (; pfn < end_pfn;
> > + pfn += (1 << order), order = ilog2(end_pfn - pfn)) {
> > + err = __kho_preserve(&kho_mem_track, pfn, order);
> > + if (err) {
> > + failed_pfn = pfn;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> [...
> > +struct folio *kho_restore_folio(phys_addr_t phys)
> > +{
> > + struct page *page = pfn_to_online_page(PHYS_PFN(phys));
> > + unsigned long order = page->private;
> > +
> > + if (!page)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + order = page->private;
> > + if (order)
> > + prep_compound_page(page, order);
> > + else
> > + kho_restore_page(page);
> > +
> > + return page_folio(page);
> > +}
> [...]
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
