linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To: Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
	bp@alien8.de, peterz@infradead.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
	rppt@linux.ibm.com, pj@sgi.com
Subject: Re: Why does memblock only refer to E820 table and not EFI Memory Map?
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:09:49 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190723080949.GB9859@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cfee410c5dd4b359ee395ad075f31133387def70.camel@intel.com>

Hi,
On 07/20/19 at 03:52pm, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Disclaimer:
> 1. Please note that this discussion is x86 specific
> 2. Below stated things are my understanding about kernel and I could have
> missed somethings, so please let me know if I understood something wrong.
> 3. I have focused only on memblock here because if I understand correctly,
> memblock is the base that feeds other memory management subsystems in kernel
> (like the buddy allocator).
> 
> On x86 platforms, there are two sources through which kernel learns about
> physical memory in the system namely E820 table and EFI Memory Map. Each table
> describes which regions of system memory is usable by kernel and which regions
> should be preserved (i.e. reserved regions that typically have BIOS code/data)
> so that no other component in the system could read/write to these regions. I
> think they are duplicating the information and hence I have couple of
> questions regarding these
> 
> 1. I see that only E820 table is being consumed by kernel [1] (i.e. memblock
> subsystem in kernel) to distinguish between "usable" vs "reserved" regions.
> Assume someone has called memblock_alloc(), the memblock subsystem would
> service the caller by allocating memory from "usable" regions and it knows
> this *only* from E820 table [2] (it does not check if EFI Memory Map also says
> that this region is usable as well). So, why isn't the kernel taking EFI
> Memory Map into consideration? (I see that it does happen only when
> "add_efi_memmap" kernel command line arg is passed i.e. passing this argument
> updates E820 table based on EFI Memory Map) [3]. The problem I see with
> memblock not taking EFI Memory Map into consideration is that, we are ignoring
> the main purpose for which EFI Memory Map exists.

https://blog.fpmurphy.com/2012/08/uefi-memory-v-e820-memory.html
Probably above blog can explain some background.

> 
> 2. Why doesn't the kernel have "add_efi_memmap" by default? From the commit
> "200001eb140e: x86 boot: only pick up additional EFI memmap if add_efi_memmap
> flag", I didn't understand why the decision was made so. Shouldn't we give
> more preference to EFI Memory map rather than E820 table as it's the latest
> and E820 is legacy?
> 
> 3. Why isn't kernel checking that both the tables E820 table and EFI Memory
> Map are in sync i.e. is there any *possibility* that a buggy BIOS could report
> a region as usable in E820 table and as reserved in EFI Memory Map?
> 
> [1] 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c#L1106
> [2] 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c#L1265
> [3] 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c#L129
> 
> Regards,
> Sai
> 

Thanks
Dave


  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-23  8:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-20 22:52 Why does memblock only refer to E820 table and not EFI Memory Map? Sai Praneeth Prakhya
2019-07-23  8:09 ` Dave Young [this message]
2019-07-23 17:11   ` Prakhya, Sai Praneeth
2019-07-23 21:38 ` Ricardo Neri
2019-07-23 22:01   ` Sai Praneeth Prakhya

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=20190723080949.GB9859@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com \
    --to=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pj@sgi.com \
    --cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).