> Am 09.04.2021 um 15:59 schrieb Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:46:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>> Also, will that memory properly be exposed in the resource tree as >>>>> System RAM (e.g., /proc/iomem) ? Otherwise some things (/proc/kcore) >>>>> won't work as expected - the kernel won't be included in a dump. >>> Do we really need a XIP kernel to included in kdump? >>> And does not it sound weird to expose flash as System RAM in /proc/iomem? ;-) >> >> See my other mail, maybe we actually want something different. >> >>> >>>> I have just checked and it does not appear in /proc/iomem. >>>> >>>> Ok your conclusion would be to have struct page, I'm going to implement this >>>> version then using memblock as you described. >>> >>> I'm not sure this is required. With XIP kernel text never gets into RAM, so >>> it does not seem to require struct page. >>> >>> XIP by definition has some limitations relatively to "normal" operation, >>> so lack of kdump could be one of them. >> >> I agree. >> >>> >>> I might be wrong, but IMHO, artificially creating a memory map for part of >>> flash would cause more problems in the long run. >> >> Can you elaborate? > > Nothing particular, just a gut feeling. Usually, when you force something > it comes out the wrong way later. > >>> >>> BTW, how does XIP account the kernel text on other architectures that >>> implement it? >> >> Interesting point, I thought XIP would be something new on RISC-V (well, at >> least to me :) ). If that concept exists already, we better mimic what >> existing implementations do. > > I had quick glance at ARM, it seems that kernel text does not have memory > map and does not show up in System RAM. > Does it show up in a different way or not at all? > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike. >
