Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] x86, efi: Reserve UEFI 2.8 Specific Purpose Memory for dax

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:23 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:29 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[..]
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_APPLICATION_RESERVED
> > > static inline bool is_efi_application_reserved(efi_memory_desc_t *md)
> > > {
> > >         return md->type == EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY
> > >                 && (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_SP);
> > > }
> > > #else
> > > static inline bool is_efi_application_reserved(efi_memory_desc_t *md)
> > > {
> > >         return false;
> > > }
> > > #endif
> >
> > I think this policy decision should not live inside the EFI subsystem.
> > EFI just gives you the memory map, and mangling that information
> > depending on whether you think a certain memory attribute should be
> > ignored is the job of the MM subsystem.
>
> The problem is that we don't have an mm subsystem at the time a
> decision needs to be made. The reservation policy needs to be deployed
> before even memblock has been initialized in order to keep kernel
> allocations out of the reservation. I agree with the sentiment I just
> don't see how to practically achieve an optional "System RAM" vs
> "Application Reserved" routing decision without an early (before
> e820__memblock_setup()) conditional branch.

I can at least move it out of include/linux/efi.h and move it to
arch/x86/include/asm/efi.h since it is an x86 specific policy decision
/ implementation for now.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux