9:06 p.m.
Hi tao
crash load 5.12 before vmcore, parse section_size_bits equals 27,
but it should be equals 30. because defined "CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES",
The commit "568c6f04" for compat android gki, so we should cleanup.
Exp:
Before:
crash vmcore vmlinux -d1
...
xtime timespec.tv_sec: 603549d0: Wed Feb 24 02:30:40 CST 2021
utsname:
sysname: Linux
nodename: localhost
release: 4.14.180-perf-g4483caa8ae80-dirty
version: #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Feb 24 03:16:01 CST 2021
machine: aarch64
domainname: localdomain
...
SECTION_SIZE_BITS: 27
...
After:
crash vmcore vmlinux -d1
...
xtime timespec.tv_sec: 603549d0: Wed Feb 24 02:30:40 CST 2021
utsname:
sysname: Linux
nodename: localhost
release: 4.14.180-perf-g4483caa8ae80-dirty
version: #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Feb 24 03:16:01 CST 2021
machine: aarch64
domainname: localdomain
...
SECTION_SIZE_BITS: 30
...
diff --git a/arm64.c b/arm64.c
index 06e7451..05ffdb3 100644
--- a/arm64.c
+++ b/arm64.c
@@ -1698,14 +1698,7 @@ arm64_get_section_size_bits(void)
if ((ret = get_kernel_config("CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG",
NULL)) == IKCONFIG_Y) {
if ((ret =
get_kernel_config("CONFIG_HOTPLUG_SIZE_BITS", &string)) == IKCONFIG_STR)
machdep->section_size_bits = atol(string);
- }
-
- /* arm64: reduce section size for sparsemem */
- if ((ret = get_kernel_config("CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES",
NULL)) == IKCONFIG_Y
- || (ret =
get_kernel_config("CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES", NULL)) == IKCONFIG_Y)
- machdep->section_size_bits =
_SECTION_SIZE_BITS_5_12;
- else if ((ret = get_kernel_config("CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES",
NULL)) == IKCONFIG_Y)
- machdep->section_size_bits =
_SECTION_SIZE_BITS_5_12_64K;
+ }
}
if (CRASHDEBUG(1))
Thanks,
Guanyou.
1:16 a.m.
Hi Guanyou & lianbo,
I re-thought about the patch, and I agree the revert patch should be
applied, the reverted code is already covered by the previous:
if (THIS_KERNEL_VERSION >= LINUX(5,12,0)) {
...
else
...
hunk, so there is no need for the
CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES/CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES checks here. Previously
the patch was applied for the compatibility of android kernel due to
its customization, mainline kernel won't need this.
What do you think? @Lianbo Jiang
Thanks,
Tao Liu
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 2:06 PM Guanyou Chen <chenguanyou9338(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi tao
crash load 5.12 before vmcore, parse section_size_bits equals 27,
but it should be equals 30. because defined "CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES",
The commit "568c6f04" for compat android gki, so we should cleanup.
Exp:
Before:
crash vmcore vmlinux -d1
...
xtime timespec.tv_sec: 603549d0: Wed Feb 24 02:30:40 CST 2021
utsname:
sysname: Linux
nodename: localhost
release: 4.14.180-perf-g4483caa8ae80-dirty
version: #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Feb 24 03:16:01 CST 2021
machine: aarch64
domainname: localdomain
...
SECTION_SIZE_BITS: 27
...
After:
crash vmcore vmlinux -d1
...
xtime timespec.tv_sec: 603549d0: Wed Feb 24 02:30:40 CST 2021
utsname:
sysname: Linux
nodename: localhost
release: 4.14.180-perf-g4483caa8ae80-dirty
version: #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Feb 24 03:16:01 CST 2021
machine: aarch64
domainname: localdomain
...
SECTION_SIZE_BITS: 30
...
diff --git a/arm64.c b/arm64.c
index 06e7451..05ffdb3 100644
--- a/arm64.c
+++ b/arm64.c
@@ -1698,14 +1698,7 @@ arm64_get_section_size_bits(void)
if ((ret = get_kernel_config("CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG", NULL)) ==
IKCONFIG_Y) {
if ((ret =
get_kernel_config("CONFIG_HOTPLUG_SIZE_BITS", &string)) == IKCONFIG_STR)
machdep->section_size_bits = atol(string);
- }
-
- /* arm64: reduce section size for sparsemem */
- if ((ret = get_kernel_config("CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES", NULL)) ==
IKCONFIG_Y
- || (ret = get_kernel_config("CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES",
NULL)) == IKCONFIG_Y)
- machdep->section_size_bits = _SECTION_SIZE_BITS_5_12;
- else if ((ret = get_kernel_config("CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES",
NULL)) == IKCONFIG_Y)
- machdep->section_size_bits = _SECTION_SIZE_BITS_5_12_64K;
+ }
}
if (CRASHDEBUG(1))
Thanks,
Guanyou.
9:32 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 2:16 PM Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Guanyou & lianbo,
I re-thought about the patch, and I agree the revert patch should be
applied, the reverted code is already covered by the previous:
if (THIS_KERNEL_VERSION >= LINUX(5,12,0)) {
...
else
...
hunk, so there is no need for the
CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES/CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES checks here. Previously
the patch was applied for the compatibility of android kernel due to
its customization, mainline kernel won't need this.
What do you think? @Lianbo Jiang
Sorry for the late reply, Tao and Guanyou.
I agree with you, let's revert this one(because that patch seems not
needed.)
Thanks
Lianbo
10:01 p.m.
Hi lianbo,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:32 PM lijiang <lijiang(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 2:16 PM Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Guanyou & lianbo,
>
> I re-thought about the patch, and I agree the revert patch should be
> applied, the reverted code is already covered by the previous:
>
> if (THIS_KERNEL_VERSION >= LINUX(5,12,0)) {
> ...
> else
> ...
>
> hunk, so there is no need for the
> CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES/CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES checks here. Previously
> the patch was applied for the compatibility of android kernel due to
> its customization, mainline kernel won't need this.
>
> What do you think? @Lianbo Jiang
Sorry for the late reply, Tao and Guanyou.
I agree with you, let's revert this one(because that patch seems not needed.)
Agreed, let's go with the revert.
Thanks,
Tao Liu
Thanks
Lianbo
1:54 a.m.
Thanks for the feedback!
Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> 于2024年9月11日周三 11:02写道：
Hi lianbo,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:32 PM lijiang <lijiang(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 2:16 PM Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Guanyou & lianbo,
>>
>> I re-thought about the patch, and I agree the revert patch should be
>> applied, the reverted code is already covered by the previous:
>>
>> if (THIS_KERNEL_VERSION >= LINUX(5,12,0)) {
>> ...
>> else
>> ...
>>
>> hunk, so there is no need for the
>> CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES/CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES checks here. Previously
>> the patch was applied for the compatibility of android kernel due to
>> its customization, mainline kernel won't need this.
>>
>> What do you think? @Lianbo Jiang
>
>
> Sorry for the late reply, Tao and Guanyou.
>
> I agree with you, let's revert this one(because that patch seems not
needed.)
>
Agreed, let's go with the revert.
Thanks,
Tao Liu
> Thanks
> Lianbo
4:29 a.m.
Hi tao, lianbo
Will it be merged before version 8.0.6 ?
Guanyou Chen <chenguanyou9338(a)gmail.com> 于2024年9月20日周五 14:54写道：
Thanks for the feedback!
Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> 于2024年9月11日周三 11:02写道：
> Hi lianbo,
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:32 PM lijiang <lijiang(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 2:16 PM Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Guanyou & lianbo,
> >>
> >> I re-thought about the patch, and I agree the revert patch should be
> >> applied, the reverted code is already covered by the previous:
> >>
> >> if (THIS_KERNEL_VERSION >= LINUX(5,12,0)) {
> >> ...
> >> else
> >> ...
> >>
> >> hunk, so there is no need for the
> >> CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES/CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES checks here. Previously
> >> the patch was applied for the compatibility of android kernel due to
> >> its customization, mainline kernel won't need this.
> >>
> >> What do you think? @Lianbo Jiang
> >
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply, Tao and Guanyou.
> >
> > I agree with you, let's revert this one(because that patch seems not
> needed.)
> >
> Agreed, let's go with the revert.
>
> Thanks,
> Tao Liu
>
> > Thanks
> > Lianbo
>
>
8:05 p.m.
Hi Guanyou,
On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 10:30 PM Guanyou Chen <chenguanyou9338(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi tao, lianbo
Will it be merged before version 8.0.6 ?
Yes, I'm handling it, will be merged shortly.
Thanks,
Tao Liu
Guanyou Chen <chenguanyou9338(a)gmail.com> 于2024年9月20日周五 14:54写道：
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> 于2024年9月11日周三 11:02写道：
>>
>> Hi lianbo,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:32 PM lijiang <lijiang(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 2:16 PM Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Guanyou & lianbo,
>> >>
>> >> I re-thought about the patch, and I agree the revert patch should be
>> >> applied, the reverted code is already covered by the previous:
>> >>
>> >> if (THIS_KERNEL_VERSION >= LINUX(5,12,0)) {
>> >> ...
>> >> else
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> hunk, so there is no need for the
>> >> CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES/CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES checks here. Previously
>> >> the patch was applied for the compatibility of android kernel due to
>> >> its customization, mainline kernel won't need this.
>> >>
>> >> What do you think? @Lianbo Jiang
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry for the late reply, Tao and Guanyou.
>> >
>> > I agree with you, let's revert this one(because that patch seems not
needed.)
>> >
>> Agreed, let's go with the revert.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tao Liu
>>
>> > Thanks
>> > Lianbo
>>
9:35 p.m.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 2:05 PM Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Guanyou,
On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 10:30 PM Guanyou Chen <chenguanyou9338(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi tao, lianbo
>
> Will it be merged before version 8.0.6 ?
Yes, I'm handling it, will be merged shortly.
Merged with some modifications on the commit log:
https://github.com/crash-utility/crash/commit/32b03ca26229bf587652952e0ca...
Thanks,
Tao Liu
Thanks,
Tao Liu
>
> Guanyou Chen <chenguanyou9338(a)gmail.com> 于2024年9月20日周五 14:54写道：
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback!
>>
>> Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> 于2024年9月11日周三 11:02写道：
>>>
>>> Hi lianbo,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:32 PM lijiang <lijiang(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 2:16 PM Tao Liu <ltao(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Guanyou & lianbo,
>>> >>
>>> >> I re-thought about the patch, and I agree the revert patch should
be
>>> >> applied, the reverted code is already covered by the previous:
>>> >>
>>> >> if (THIS_KERNEL_VERSION >= LINUX(5,12,0)) {
>>> >> ...
>>> >> else
>>> >> ...
>>> >>
>>> >> hunk, so there is no need for the
>>> >> CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES/CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES checks here.
Previously
>>> >> the patch was applied for the compatibility of android kernel due
to
>>> >> its customization, mainline kernel won't need this.
>>> >>
>>> >> What do you think? @Lianbo Jiang
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Sorry for the late reply, Tao and Guanyou.
>>> >
>>> > I agree with you, let's revert this one(because that patch seems
not needed.)
>>> >
>>> Agreed, let's go with the revert.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tao Liu
>>>
>>> > Thanks
>>> > Lianbo
>>>
77
days inactive
118
days old
devel@lists.crash-utility.osci.io
7 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Guanyou Chen -
lijiang -
Tao Liu