Ccing uefi people.
On 08/23/16 at 04:53pm, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> On 23/08/2016:09:38:16 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 02:47:30PM +0100, James Morse wrote:
> > > On 22/08/16 02:29, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:52:17PM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> > > >> It will help kexec-tools to prevent copying of any unnecessary data. I
> > > >> think, then you also need to change phys_offset calculation in kexec-tools. That
> > > >> should be start of either of first "reserved" or "System RAM" block.
> > > >
> > > > Good point, but I'm not sure this is always true.
> > >
> > > > Is there any system whose ACPI memory is *not* part of DRAM
> > >
> > > From the spec, it looks like this is allowed.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by 'DRAM'? Any ACPI region will be in the UEFI memory map, so
> > > the question is what is its type and memory attributes?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > The UEFI spec[0] says ACPI regions can have a type of EfiACPIReclaimMemory or
> > > EfiACPIMemoryNVS, the memory attributes aren't specified, so are chosen by the
> > > firmware.
> > >
> > > It is possible these regions have to be mapped non-cacheable, page 40 has a
> > > couple of:
> > > > If no information about the table location exists in the UEFI memory map or
> > > ACPI memory
> > > > descriptors, the table is assumed to be non-cached.
> > >
> > > reserve_regions() in drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c will add any entry in the
> > > memory map that has a 'WB' attribute to the memblock.memory list (via
> > > early_init_dt_add_memory_arch()), it will also mark as no-map regions that have
> > > this attribute and aren't in the is_reserve_region() list.
Looking the arm-init.c, I suspect it missed the some efi ranges as
reserved ranges like runtime code and runtime data etc. But I might be
wrong.
Below is the is_reserve_region, it will regard any regions which is not
in the EFI_* below as normal memory, it does not include the runtime
ranges and other types.
static __init int is_reserve_region(efi_memory_desc_t *md)
{
switch (md->type) {
case EFI_LOADER_CODE:
case EFI_LOADER_DATA:
case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE:
case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA:
case EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY:
case EFI_PERSISTENT_MEMORY:
return 0;
default:
break;
}
return is_normal_ram(md);
}
Let's see the x86 do_add_efi_mem_map, the default case set all other
types as reserved. Shouldn't this be same in all arches though there's
no e820 in arm(64)?
static void __init do_add_efi_memmap(void)
{
[snip]
switch (md->type) {
case EFI_LOADER_CODE:
case EFI_LOADER_DATA:
case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE:
case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA:
case EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY:
if (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_WB)
e820_type = E820_RAM;
else
e820_type = E820_RESERVED;
break;
[snip]
default:
/*
* EFI_RESERVED_TYPE EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE
* EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA
* EFI_MEMORY_MAPPED_IO
* EFI_MEMORY_MAPPED_IO_PORT_SPACE EFI_PAL_CODE
*/
e820_type = E820_RESERVED;
break;
}
[snip]
}
> > >
> > > If these ACPI regions have the 'WB' attribute, we add them as memory and mark
> > > them nomap. These show up as either a hole, or 'reserved' in /proc/iomem.
> > > If they don't have the 'WB' attribute, then then they are left out of memblock
> > > and aren't part of DRAM, I don't think these will show up in /proc/iomem at all.
> >
> > Let's say,
> > 0x1000-0x1fff: reserved (SRAM for UEFI, WB)
> > 0x80000000-0xffffffff: System RAM (DRAM)
>
> May be slightly more complicated:
> 0x80000000-0x80001fff: System RAM (DRAM) for UEFI, WB
> 0x80002000-0xffffffff: System RAM (DRAM)
>
> Kernel will have phys_offset 0x80000000, however kexec-tools will calculate it
> as 0x80002000.
>
> >
> > If, as Pratyush suggested, "reserved" resources are added to phys_offset
> > calculation, the kernel linear mapping area starts at PAGE_OFFSET, but
> > there is no actual mapping around PAGE_OFFSET.
> > It won't hurt anything, but looks funny.
> > So we'd better not include "reserved" in phys_offset calculation anyway.
> > -> Pratyush
>
> My only concern is that, then we will have different values of phys_offset in
> kernel and kexec-tools, which might lead to further confusion.
>
> ~Pratyush
