On 01/07/15 at 11:41am, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 6 January 2015 at 08:16, Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 01/05/15 at 09:18am, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 4 January 2015 at 08:19, Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On 12/30/14 at 01:21pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> >> On 30 December 2014 at 09:25, Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > On 12/29/14 at 09:22am, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> >> >> On 26 December 2014 at 09:35, Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> > On 12/22/14 at 07:08pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> >> >> >> This series was split off from the UEFI virtmap for kexec series that I posted > >> >> >> >> earlier today. The main purpose is to deal with the need to classify memory > >> >> >> >> ranges as RAM or non-RAM in a consistent and comprehensive manner. This series > >> >> >> >> applies on top of the other series. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Patch #1 avoids an early panic if the UEFI memory map is available but UEFI > >> >> >> >> support itself fails to initialize. In this case, there is no need to panic > >> >> >> >> early, and we have a better chance of being able to inform the user if we deal > >> >> >> >> with this error condition at a later time. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Patch #2 adds iomem resource registration of UEFI memory regions. This is > >> >> >> >> necessary because otherwise, drivers could potentially claim regions that > >> >> >> >> are in active use by the firmware. This applies to both MMIO (NOR flash, RTC) > >> >> >> >> and RAM ranges (runtime services code and data). > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Patch #3-6 adds support to UEFI and non-UEFI code paths to record all memory > >> >> >> >> known to the system in the 'physmem' memblock table (if enabled). This fulfils > >> >> >> >> a need in the /dev/mem and (upcoming) ACPI layers to be able to classify ranges > >> >> >> >> as being backed by normal RAM even if they are not covered by the 'memory' > >> >> >> >> memblock table, and are hence not covered by the linear direct mapping. > >> >> >> >> The physmem code is pre-existing code that only needs minor tweaking to be made > >> >> >> >> suitable for this purpose. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Patch #7 enables the 'physmem' memblock table for arm64, and wires it into the > >> >> >> >> handling of /dev/mem mappings, both to decide whether it should be mapped as > >> >> >> >> MT_NORMAL, and whether read-write access can be allowed. (Non-RAM regions can > >> >> >> >> be mapped read-write as long as they are not claimed by a driver in the iomem > >> >> >> >> resource table. RAM regions can only be mapped read-only, and only if they are > >> >> >> >> not covered by the 'memory' memblock table, and hence not covered by the linear > >> >> >> >> mapping) > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Finally, patch #8 changes the way the virtual memory map is handled by the > >> >> >> >> early UEFI code. Specifically, it memblock_remove()s rather than _reserves() > >> >> >> >> UEFI reserved RAM regions, so that they are removed entirely from the linear > >> >> >> >> mapping. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Ard Biesheuvel (8): > >> >> >> >> arm64/efi: use UEFI memory map unconditionally if available > >> >> >> >> arm64/efi: register UEFI reserved regions as iomem resources > >> >> >> >> memblock: add physmem to memblock_dump_all() output > >> >> >> >> memblock: introduce memblock_add_phys() and memblock_is_physmem() > >> >> >> >> of: fdt: register physmem in early_init_dt_scan_memory() > >> >> >> >> arm64/efi: register physmem in reserve_regions() > >> >> >> >> arm64: use 'physmem' memblock to improve CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM handling > >> >> >> >> arm64/efi: memblock_remove rather than _reserve UEFI reserved RAM > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Ard, It is much cleaner for this splitting. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks for having a look. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I wonder if some of them can become general code such as register reserved > >> >> >> > regions as iomem resources? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> AFAICT, the x86 code adds reservations for such regions to the E820 > >> >> >> memory map, which in turn is used to memblock_reserve() the actual > >> >> >> memory. Also, sharing of the RTC is handled with a dedicated mutex in > >> >> >> the runtime services wrapper code (and x86 does not even use the time > >> >> >> related runtime services as they are broken on many firmware > >> >> >> implementations) so blindly applying the same logic to x86 or ia64 > >> >> >> would likely break stuff. > >> >> > > >> >> > Ok, I think bootloader will pass the E820 ranges though it can not tell > >> >> > which region is for what. > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Do you (or Mark) have any feedback on the utility of this series in > >> >> >> the ACPI context? I failed to mention in the cover letter that > >> >> >> memblock_is_physmem() now serves the purpose of page_is_ram(), i.e., > >> >> >> whether a physical region is backed by a slice of RAM that was left > >> >> >> out of the kernel's linear mapping. > >> >> > > >> >> > I will do some test later along with the stable mapping stuff. > >> > > >> > The whole patchset works well without the last patch. > >> > > >> > I found that patch 8/8 caused system boot hangs very early. > >> > Just after stub print something about virtmap.. > >> > > >> > >> Which platform is this? > >> Do you have earlycon enabled? > > > > It is apm mustang, earlycon was enabled. > > > > That's odd. reserve_regions() is called after uefi_init(), and the > latter prints the EFI: string, so I don't think the patch should > affect anything else before that either. Could you please double check > if you do see the console enabled/disabled messages? Will check, but I did not change the kernel params.. > > >> > >> > Any idea about it? I tested your patches upon 3.18. > >> > > >> > >> I suppose you tested both the virtmap series and this one, but did you > >> also take the 3.19 changes we did for UEFI? Not sure it would make a > >> difference, though. > > > > Yes, both virtmap series and this one, I did not take UEFI 3.19 changes, > > Which patchset do you have in mind? If no clue I will try rebase to test 3.19 > > > > Well, there is patch 61139eb04056bba69aeef6c481802c4ea028bf4d that > changes the definition of is_reserve_region(), which may or may not be > relevant. Other than that, I don't think any of those patches could > make a difference here. Ok, I have no machine on hand currently, will do some debugging once I have one. > > >> > >> >> > BTW, with previous stable mapping patches on modified 3.18 tree kexec kernel > >> >> > panics because of damaged efi mempry map arrays. It contains some > >> >> > random value instead of right addresses so that virt_to_phys return > >> >> > same value for vendor field. Will do more debugging maybe I missed something. > >> >> > Any clue for debugging above issue will be appreciated. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> No clues, unfortunately. The memory map is not used after early boot, > >> >> so it may be getting clobbered at any point between the first boot and > >> >> the second boot. > >> > > >> > It was caused by uefi sys table/mmap start addresses changes. > >> > I generate dtb from acpi=off boot /proc/device-tree, and use the dtb for kexec > >> > boot, but seems mmap addresses changes sometimes. > >> > > >> > Do you know have plan or status in Linaro for exporting dtb for acpi booting? > >> > > >> > >> We have this patch upstream now > >> > >> 08d53aa58cb1 of/fdt: export fdt blob as /sys/firmware/fdt > >> > >> which exports whatever FDT the kernel received from the bootloader or > >> the EFI stub, regardless of whether the kernel uses DT or not. > > > > Great, will try. > > > > Thanks > > Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
