From: Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com> To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: support ACPI tables outside of kernel RAM Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 09:49:06 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1432302546.9933.82.camel@deneb.redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20150522103417.GT29424@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 11:34 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:49:28PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 18 May 2015 at 18:41, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:58:45AM -0400, Mark Salter wrote: > > >> On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 12:11 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > >> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:22:53AM -0400, Mark Salter wrote: > > >> > > There is no guarantee that ACPI tables will be located in RAM linearly > > >> > > mapped by the kernel. This could be because UEFI placed them below the > > >> > > kernel image or because mem= places them beyond the reach of the linear > > >> > > kernel mapping. Even though these tables are outside the linear mapped > > >> > > RAM, they still need to be accessed as normal memory in order to support > > >> > > unaligned accesses from ACPI code. In this case, the page_is_ram() test > > >> > > in acpi_os_ioremap() is not sufficient. > > >> > > > >> > And can we not simply add the rest of the RAM to the resource list as > > >> > "System RAM" without being part of memblock? > > >> > > >> If it is in "System RAM", then it needs a valid pfn and struct page. > > >> Parts of the kernel expect that (page_is_ram(), memory hotplug, etc). > > > > > > OK, I had the impression that we could get away with this. > > > > > >> > > Additionally, if the table spans multiple pages, it may fall partially > > >> > > within the linear map and partially without. If the table overlaps the > > >> > > end of the linear map, the test for whether or not to use the existing > > >> > > mapping in ioremap_cache() could lead to a panic when ACPI code tries > > >> > > to access the part beyond the end of the linear map. This patch > > >> > > attempts to address these problems. > > >> > > > >> > That's a problem with ioremap_cache() that should be fixed independently. > > >> > > >> I can submit that separately if you prefer. > > > > > > Yes, please. > > > > > >> > Ideally, I'd like to see the ACPI code use different APIs to distinguish > > >> > between table access in RAM and device access, so that we don't have to > > >> > guess whether the page is RAM or not. > > >> > > >> I don't think the ACPI code has enough info to make that decision, but > > >> I'm not sure honestly. > > > > > > Do we have a guarantee that UEFI tells the kernel about the whole RAM? > > > > Yes, the UEFI memory map must describe all of RAM, no matter how it is > > used. I may also describe some MMIO regions, but typically only > > regions that it needs itself to implement the UEFI Runtime Services > > (e.g., RTC base address, NOR flash for the variable store) > > > > So we could potentially query the UEFI memory map directly to find out > > whether some otherwise unqualified region is backed by RAM or not, > > although I'd prefer some intermediate data structure (such as the > > physmem memblock table) if we go that route. > > OK, so my preferred options, in this order: > > 1. Change the core ACPI kernel code to distinguish between mapping I/O > or RAM (could be as simple as acpi_map not using acpi_os_ioremap but > another API). I guess the code knows when it plans to map tables or > I/O registers >From my reading of the code, ACPI distinguishes a number of different address spaces and allows for the installation of handlers to access those various spaces. The problem with ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY is that it covers both mmio and RAM and ACPI code makes no distinction between the two. x86 code uses page_is_ram() to decide whether to use kmap() or ioremap(). ia64 always uses ioremap() which sorts out the caching internally. For arm64, we ended up with using page_is_ram() to decide between ioremap_cache() an ioremap(). I don't think generic ACPI code has the ability to do any better than that. It really is an architecture decision based on address space attributes which ACPI doesn't know about. > > 2. If the above is not possible, add the extra checks as per Mark's > patch but I would rather call this resource "UEFI RAM" than "ACPI", > it's not really ACPI specific. >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: msalter@redhat.com (Mark Salter) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH] arm64: support ACPI tables outside of kernel RAM Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 09:49:06 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1432302546.9933.82.camel@deneb.redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20150522103417.GT29424@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 11:34 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:49:28PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 18 May 2015 at 18:41, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:58:45AM -0400, Mark Salter wrote: > > >> On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 12:11 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > >> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:22:53AM -0400, Mark Salter wrote: > > >> > > There is no guarantee that ACPI tables will be located in RAM linearly > > >> > > mapped by the kernel. This could be because UEFI placed them below the > > >> > > kernel image or because mem= places them beyond the reach of the linear > > >> > > kernel mapping. Even though these tables are outside the linear mapped > > >> > > RAM, they still need to be accessed as normal memory in order to support > > >> > > unaligned accesses from ACPI code. In this case, the page_is_ram() test > > >> > > in acpi_os_ioremap() is not sufficient. > > >> > > > >> > And can we not simply add the rest of the RAM to the resource list as > > >> > "System RAM" without being part of memblock? > > >> > > >> If it is in "System RAM", then it needs a valid pfn and struct page. > > >> Parts of the kernel expect that (page_is_ram(), memory hotplug, etc). > > > > > > OK, I had the impression that we could get away with this. > > > > > >> > > Additionally, if the table spans multiple pages, it may fall partially > > >> > > within the linear map and partially without. If the table overlaps the > > >> > > end of the linear map, the test for whether or not to use the existing > > >> > > mapping in ioremap_cache() could lead to a panic when ACPI code tries > > >> > > to access the part beyond the end of the linear map. This patch > > >> > > attempts to address these problems. > > >> > > > >> > That's a problem with ioremap_cache() that should be fixed independently. > > >> > > >> I can submit that separately if you prefer. > > > > > > Yes, please. > > > > > >> > Ideally, I'd like to see the ACPI code use different APIs to distinguish > > >> > between table access in RAM and device access, so that we don't have to > > >> > guess whether the page is RAM or not. > > >> > > >> I don't think the ACPI code has enough info to make that decision, but > > >> I'm not sure honestly. > > > > > > Do we have a guarantee that UEFI tells the kernel about the whole RAM? > > > > Yes, the UEFI memory map must describe all of RAM, no matter how it is > > used. I may also describe some MMIO regions, but typically only > > regions that it needs itself to implement the UEFI Runtime Services > > (e.g., RTC base address, NOR flash for the variable store) > > > > So we could potentially query the UEFI memory map directly to find out > > whether some otherwise unqualified region is backed by RAM or not, > > although I'd prefer some intermediate data structure (such as the > > physmem memblock table) if we go that route. > > OK, so my preferred options, in this order: > > 1. Change the core ACPI kernel code to distinguish between mapping I/O > or RAM (could be as simple as acpi_map not using acpi_os_ioremap but > another API). I guess the code knows when it plans to map tables or > I/O registers >From my reading of the code, ACPI distinguishes a number of different address spaces and allows for the installation of handlers to access those various spaces. The problem with ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY is that it covers both mmio and RAM and ACPI code makes no distinction between the two. x86 code uses page_is_ram() to decide whether to use kmap() or ioremap(). ia64 always uses ioremap() which sorts out the caching internally. For arm64, we ended up with using page_is_ram() to decide between ioremap_cache() an ioremap(). I don't think generic ACPI code has the ability to do any better than that. It really is an architecture decision based on address space attributes which ACPI doesn't know about. > > 2. If the above is not possible, add the extra checks as per Mark's > patch but I would rather call this resource "UEFI RAM" than "ACPI", > it's not really ACPI specific. >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-22 13:49 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-05-14 14:22 [PATCH] arm64: support ACPI tables outside of kernel RAM Mark Salter 2015-05-14 14:22 ` Mark Salter 2015-05-14 14:50 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2015-05-14 14:50 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2015-05-15 13:58 ` Mark Salter 2015-05-15 13:58 ` Mark Salter 2015-05-18 11:11 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-05-18 11:11 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-05-18 13:58 ` Mark Salter 2015-05-18 13:58 ` Mark Salter 2015-05-18 16:41 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-05-18 16:41 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-05-18 16:49 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2015-05-18 16:49 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2015-05-22 10:34 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-05-22 10:34 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-05-22 12:46 ` Mark Salter 2015-05-22 12:46 ` Mark Salter 2015-05-22 12:53 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-05-22 12:53 ` Catalin Marinas 2015-05-22 13:13 ` Mark Salter 2015-05-22 13:13 ` Mark Salter 2015-05-22 13:49 ` Mark Salter [this message] 2015-05-22 13:49 ` Mark Salter
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=1432302546.9933.82.camel@deneb.redhat.com \ --to=msalter@redhat.com \ --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=matt.fleming@intel.com \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.