lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] memblock: define functions to set the usable memory range
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 08:44:41PM +0000, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:31:58PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> > > @@ -481,6 +481,8 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_reserved_size(void);
> > > phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void);
> > > phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void);
> > > void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit);
> > > +void memblock_set_usable_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> > > +void memblock_enforce_usable_range(void);
> > > void memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> > > void memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit);
> >
> > We already have 3 very similar interfaces that deal with memory capping.
> > Now you suggest to add fourth that will "generically" solve a single use
> > case of DT, EFI and kdump interaction on arm64.
> >
> > Looks like a workaround for a fundamental issue of incompatibility between
> > DT and EFI wrt memory registration.
>
> Yep, I figured this would be the main argument against this - arm64
> already added several other more-or-less special cased interfaces over
> time.
>
> I'm more than happy to solve this in a different way.
>
> What would you suggest:
>
> 1) Try to merge the similar interfaces in to one.

This could be a nice cleanup regardless of how we handle
"linux,usable-memory-range".

> 2) Just deal with it at a lower (arm64) level?

Probably it will be the simplest solution in the short term.

> 3) Some other way?

I'm not expert enough on DT and EFI to see how they communicate the
linux,usable-memory-range property.

One thought I have is since we already create a DT for kexec/kdump why
can't we add some data to EFI memory description similar to
linux,usable-memore-range?
Another thing is, if we could presume that DT and EFI are consistent in
their view what is the span of the physical memory, we could drop
memblock_remove(EVERYTHIING) and early_init_dt_add_memory_arch() from
efi_init::reserve_regions() and then the loop over EFI memory descriptors
will only take care of reserved and nomap regions.

> Thanks,
>
> - Frank
>

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-12 19:06    [W:0.118 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site