All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
	linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org,
	leif.lindholm-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
	james.morse-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: arm: Don't mark ACPI reclaim memory as MEMBLOCK_NOMAP
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 10:08:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170605090847.GC4650@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170605080435.2498-1-ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 08:04:35AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On ARM, regions of memory that are described by UEFI as having special
> significance to the firmware itself are omitted from the linear mapping.
> This is necessary since we cannot guarantee that alternate mappings of
> the same physical region will use attributes that are compatible with
> the ones we use for the linear mapping, and aliases with mismatched
> attributes are prohibited by the architecture.
> 
> The above does not apply to ACPI reclaim regions: such regions have no
> special significance to the firmware, and it is up to the OS to decide
> whether or not to preserve them after it has consumed their contents,
> and for how long, after which time the OS can use the memory in any way
> it likes. In the Linux case, such regions are preserved indefinitely,
> and are simply treated the same way as other 'reserved' memory types.
> 
> Punching holes into the linear mapping causes page table fragmentation,
> which increases TLB pressure, and so we should avoid doing so if we can.
> So add a special case for regions of type EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY, and
> memblock_reserve() them instead of marking them MEMBLOCK_NOMAP.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>

Sounds sane to me. FWIW:

Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>

Thanks,
Mark.

> ---
>  drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> index 1027d7b44358..0aa4ce7b4fbb 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> @@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ static __init int is_usable_memory(efi_memory_desc_t *md)
>  	switch (md->type) {
>  	case EFI_LOADER_CODE:
>  	case EFI_LOADER_DATA:
> +	case EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY:
>  	case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE:
>  	case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA:
>  	case EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY:
> @@ -211,6 +212,10 @@ static __init void reserve_regions(void)
>  
>  			if (!is_usable_memory(md))
>  				memblock_mark_nomap(paddr, size);
> +
> +			/* keep ACPI reclaim memory intact for kexec etc. */
> +			if (md->type == EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY)
> +				memblock_reserve(paddr, size);
>  		}
>  	}
>  }
> -- 
> 2.9.3
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] efi: arm: Don't mark ACPI reclaim memory as MEMBLOCK_NOMAP
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 10:08:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170605090847.GC4650@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170605080435.2498-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 08:04:35AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On ARM, regions of memory that are described by UEFI as having special
> significance to the firmware itself are omitted from the linear mapping.
> This is necessary since we cannot guarantee that alternate mappings of
> the same physical region will use attributes that are compatible with
> the ones we use for the linear mapping, and aliases with mismatched
> attributes are prohibited by the architecture.
> 
> The above does not apply to ACPI reclaim regions: such regions have no
> special significance to the firmware, and it is up to the OS to decide
> whether or not to preserve them after it has consumed their contents,
> and for how long, after which time the OS can use the memory in any way
> it likes. In the Linux case, such regions are preserved indefinitely,
> and are simply treated the same way as other 'reserved' memory types.
> 
> Punching holes into the linear mapping causes page table fragmentation,
> which increases TLB pressure, and so we should avoid doing so if we can.
> So add a special case for regions of type EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY, and
> memblock_reserve() them instead of marking them MEMBLOCK_NOMAP.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>

Sounds sane to me. FWIW:

Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

Thanks,
Mark.

> ---
>  drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> index 1027d7b44358..0aa4ce7b4fbb 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c
> @@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ static __init int is_usable_memory(efi_memory_desc_t *md)
>  	switch (md->type) {
>  	case EFI_LOADER_CODE:
>  	case EFI_LOADER_DATA:
> +	case EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY:
>  	case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE:
>  	case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA:
>  	case EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY:
> @@ -211,6 +212,10 @@ static __init void reserve_regions(void)
>  
>  			if (!is_usable_memory(md))
>  				memblock_mark_nomap(paddr, size);
> +
> +			/* keep ACPI reclaim memory intact for kexec etc. */
> +			if (md->type == EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY)
> +				memblock_reserve(paddr, size);
>  		}
>  	}
>  }
> -- 
> 2.9.3
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-06-05  9:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-05  8:04 [PATCH] efi: arm: Don't mark ACPI reclaim memory as MEMBLOCK_NOMAP Ard Biesheuvel
2017-06-05  8:04 ` Ard Biesheuvel
     [not found] ` <20170605080435.2498-1-ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2017-06-05  9:08   ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2017-06-05  9:08     ` Mark Rutland
2017-06-09  9:01     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-06-09  9:01       ` Ard Biesheuvel

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=20170605090847.GC4650@leverpostej \
    --to=mark.rutland-5wv7dgnigg8@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=james.morse-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=leif.lindholm-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.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.