Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: make pci_mem_start to be aligned only -v4

[Ingo Molnar]

* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> please check.
> >>
> >> [PATCH] x86/pci: make pci_mem_start to be aligned only -v4
> > 
> > I like the approach. That said, I think that rather than do the "modify 
> > the e820 array" thing, why not just do it in the in the resource tree, and 
> > do it at "e820_reserve_resources_late()" time?
> > 
> > IOW, something like this.
> > 
> > TOTALLY UNTESTED! The point is to take all RAM resources we haev, and 
> > _after_ we've added all the resources we've seen in the E820 tree, we then 
> > _also_ try to add fake reserved entries for any "round up to X" at the end 
> > of the RAM resources.
> > 
> > NOTE! I really didn't want to use "reserve_region_with_split()". I didn't 
> > want to recurse into any conflicting resources, I really wanted to just do 
> > the other failure cases. 
> > 
> > THIS PATCH IS NOT MEANT TO BE USED. Just a rough "almost like this" kind 
> > of thing. That includes the rough draft of how much to round things up to 
> > based on where the end of RAM region is etc. I'm really throwing this out 
> > more as a "wouldn't this be a readable way to handle any missing reserved 
> > entries" kind of thing..
> > 
> > 			Linus
> > 
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/e820.c |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> > index ef2c356..e8b8d33 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> > @@ -1370,6 +1370,23 @@ void __init e820_reserve_resources(void)
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > +/* How much should we pad RAM ending depending on where it is? */
> > +static unsigned long ram_alignment(resource_size_t pos)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long mb = pos >> 20;
> > +
> > +	/* To 64kB in the first megabyte */
> > +	if (!mb)
> > +		return 64*1024;
> > +
> > +	/* To 1MB in the first 16MB */
> > +	if (mb < 16)
> > +		return 1024*1024;
> > +
> > +	/* To 32MB for anything above that */
> > +	return 32*1024*1024;
> > +}
> > +
> >  void __init e820_reserve_resources_late(void)
> >  {
> >  	int i;
> > @@ -1381,6 +1398,23 @@ void __init e820_reserve_resources_late(void)
> >  			insert_resource_expand_to_fit(&iomem_resource, res);
> >  		res++;
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Try to bump up RAM regions to reasonable boundaries to
> > +	 * avoid stolen RAM
> > +	 */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < e820.nr_map; i++) {
> > +		struct e820entry *entry = &e820_saved.map[i];
> > +		resource_size_t start, end;
> > +
> > +		if (entry->type != E820_RAM)
> > +			continue;
> > +		start = entry->addr + entry->size;
> > +		end = round_up(start, ram_alignment(start));
> > +		if (start == end)
> > +			continue;
> > +		reserve_region_with_split(&iomem_resource, start, end, "RAM buffer");
> > +	}
> >  }
> >  
> >  char *__init default_machine_specific_memory_setup(void)
> 
> except need to change 
> > +		reserve_region_with_split(&iomem_resource, start, end, "RAM buffer");
> ==> > +		reserve_region_with_split(&iomem_resource, start, end - 1, "RAM buffer");
> 
> it will make sure dynmical allocating code will not use those range.
> 
> and could make e820_setup_gap much simple.
> 
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/e820.c |   10 ++++------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> @@ -635,14 +635,12 @@ __init void e820_setup_gap(void)
>  #endif
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * See how much we want to round up: start off with
> -	 * rounding to the next 1MB area.
> +	 * e820_reserve_resources_late will protect stolen RAM
> +	 * so just round it to 1M
>  	 */
>  	round = 0x100000;
> -	while ((gapsize >> 4) > round)
> -		round += round;
> -	/* Fun with two's complement */
> -	pci_mem_start = (gapstart + round) & -round;
> +
> +	pci_mem_start = roundup(gapstart, round);
>  
>  	printk(KERN_INFO
>  	       "Allocating PCI resources starting at %lx (gap: %lx:%lx)\n",
> 
> Ingo, can you put those two patches in tip?

I think the point would be to explore the possibility to have no 
'gap' logic at all - we should extend the e820 table with Linus's 
scheme to add 'RAM buffer' entries.

That way, if you search for a sufficient size hole, it will be 
correctly aligned straight away - with no rounding/gap logic at all. 
(Maybe add a debug warning to catch when this is not the case.)

Am i missing something?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/