All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
Cc: "Matt Fleming" <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
	"Ard Biesheuvel" <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Mika Penttilä" <mika.penttila@nextfour.com>,
	"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/efi: don't allocate memmap through memblock after mm_init()
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 08:42:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170105074221.GA1777@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878tr6jqoa.fsf@gmail.com>


* Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com> wrote:

> Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 22 Dec, at 11:23:39AM, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> >> So, after memblock is gone, allocations should be done through the "normal"
> >> page allocator. Introduce a helper, efi_memmap_alloc() for this. Use
> >> it from efi_arch_mem_reserve() and from efi_free_boot_services() as well.
> >> 
> >> Fixes: 4bc9f92e64c8 ("x86/efi-bgrt: Use efi_mem_reserve() to avoid copying image data")
> >> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
> 
> > Could you also modify efi_fake_memmap() to use your new
> > efi_memmap_alloc() function for consistency
> 
> Sure.
> 
> I'm planning to submit another set of patches addressing the (bounded)
> memmap leaking in anything calling efi_memmap_unmap() though. In the
> course of doing so, the memmap allocation sites will get touched anyway:
> I'll have to store some information about how the memmap's memory has
> been obtained.

Will that patch be intrusive?

If yes then we'll need to keep this a separate urgent patch to fix the v4.9 
regression that Dan Williams reported. I can apply the fix to efi/urgent and get 
it to Linus straight away if you guys agree.

Thanks,

	Ingo

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Nicolai Stange <nicstange-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Matt Fleming"
	<matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>,
	"Ard Biesheuvel"
	<ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
	linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	"Mika Penttilä"
	<mika.penttila-MRsr7dthA9VWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
	"Dan Williams"
	<dan.j.williams-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/efi: don't allocate memmap through memblock after mm_init()
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 08:42:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170105074221.GA1777@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878tr6jqoa.fsf-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>


* Nicolai Stange <nicstange-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 22 Dec, at 11:23:39AM, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> >> So, after memblock is gone, allocations should be done through the "normal"
> >> page allocator. Introduce a helper, efi_memmap_alloc() for this. Use
> >> it from efi_arch_mem_reserve() and from efi_free_boot_services() as well.
> >> 
> >> Fixes: 4bc9f92e64c8 ("x86/efi-bgrt: Use efi_mem_reserve() to avoid copying image data")
> >> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Stange <nicstange-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> 
> > Could you also modify efi_fake_memmap() to use your new
> > efi_memmap_alloc() function for consistency
> 
> Sure.
> 
> I'm planning to submit another set of patches addressing the (bounded)
> memmap leaking in anything calling efi_memmap_unmap() though. In the
> course of doing so, the memmap allocation sites will get touched anyway:
> I'll have to store some information about how the memmap's memory has
> been obtained.

Will that patch be intrusive?

If yes then we'll need to keep this a separate urgent patch to fix the v4.9 
regression that Dan Williams reported. I can apply the fix to efi/urgent and get 
it to Linus straight away if you guys agree.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-05  7:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-22 10:23 [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/efi: don't allocate memmap through memblock after mm_init() Nicolai Stange
2016-12-22 10:23 ` Nicolai Stange
2016-12-22 10:23 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] efi: efi_mem_reserve(): don't reserve " Nicolai Stange
2017-01-05  9:12   ` Dave Young
2017-01-05  9:12     ` Dave Young
2017-01-09 11:44     ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-09 11:44       ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-09 13:31       ` Mel Gorman
2017-01-09 13:31         ` Mel Gorman
2017-01-09 13:45         ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-09 13:45           ` Matt Fleming
2017-02-27 21:57         ` Matt Fleming
2017-02-27 21:57           ` Matt Fleming
2017-02-27 21:57           ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-10  0:37       ` Dave Young
2017-01-10  0:37         ` Dave Young
2017-01-10 12:51         ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-10 12:51           ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-11  8:04           ` Dave Young
2017-01-11  8:04             ` Dave Young
2016-12-23 14:52 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/efi: don't allocate memmap " Matt Fleming
2016-12-23 21:12   ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-05  7:42     ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2017-01-05  7:42       ` Ingo Molnar
2017-01-05  9:15       ` Dave Young
2017-01-05  9:15         ` Dave Young
2017-01-05  9:39       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-05 10:15         ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-05 10:15           ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-05 11:34           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-05 11:34             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-05 12:53             ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-05 12:53               ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-04 18:40 ` Dan Williams
2017-01-04 18:40   ` Dan Williams

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=20170105074221.GA1777@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=mika.penttila@nextfour.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=nicstange@gmail.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /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: link
Be 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.