On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:05:12PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 05.12.18 15:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:28:51PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
I don't see a reason why we have to document "Some of them might not even
exist". If there is a user, we should document it. E.g. for balloon
drivers we now use PG_offline to indicate that a page might currently
not be backed by memory in the hypervisor. And that is independent from
PG_reserved.
I think you're confused by the meaning of "some of them might not even
exist". What this means is that there might not be memory there; maybe
writes to that memory will be discarded, or maybe they'll cause a machine
check. Maybe reads will return ~0, or 0, or cause a machine check.
We just don't know what's there, and we shouldn't try touching the memory.
If there are users, let's document it. And I need more details for that :)
1. machine check: if there is a HW error, we set PG_hwpoison (except
ia64 MCA, see the list)
2. Writes to that memory will be discarded
Who is the user of that? When will we have such pages right now?
3. Reads will return ~0, / 0?
I think this is a special case of e.g. x86? But where do we have that,
are there any user?
When there are gaps in the physical memory. As in, if you put that
physical address on the bus (or in a packet), no device will respond
to it. Look:
00000000-00000fff : Reserved
00001000-00057fff : System RAM
00058000-00058fff : Reserved
00059000-0009dfff : System RAM
0009e000-000fffff : Reserved
Those examples I gave are examples of how various different architectures
respond to "no device responded to this memory access".
