Re: [PATCH] x86: vendor reserved memory type

[H. Peter Anvin]

Cliff Wickman wrote:
> From: Cliff Wickman <cpw@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Create a new e820 memory type (E820_VENDOR_RESERVED) for areas
> of memory reserved by the BIOS in the EFI table.
> 
> (An example use of this functionality is the UV system, which
>  will access extremely large areas of memory with a memory engine
>  that allows a user to address beyond the processor's range.  Such
>  areas are reserved in the EFI table by the BIOS.)
> 

There is no difference between that and E820_RESERVED, so there is no
reason to distinguish them.  The semantics are exactly the same.

> Without this patch the EFI_RESERVED_TYPE memory reservations will be
> marked usable in the e820 table. There will be a collision between
> kernel use and reserver's use of this memory.
> 
> This patch causes the EFI_RESERVED_TYPE memory reservations to be recorded
> in the e820 table as new type E820_VENDOR_RESERVED.
> This patch makes sanitize_e820_map() preserve E820_VENDOR_RESERVED types
> as separate entries.
> 
> [The elilo loader may combine regions of like type as it builds the e820
>  table in boot_params (regular RAM and vendor reserved areas are combined).
>  But this patch makes do_add_efi_memmap() separate the RESERVED regions
>  into separate e820 entries.
>  Some loaders have a restricted number of entries possible in the e820 table,
>  hence the need to record the reservations in the unrestricted EFI table.]
> The call to do_add_efi_memmap() is only made if "add_efi_memmap" is specified
> on the kernel command line.

This patch fixes a real problem in a wrong way.

The real problem is that this condition is too lenient:

                if (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_WB)
                        e820_type = E820_RAM;
                else
                        e820_type = E820_RESERVED;

It really should be something like:

	switch (md->type) {
	case EFI_LOADER_CODE:
	case EFI_LOADER_DATA:
	case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE:
	case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA:
	case EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY:
                if (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_WB)
                        e820_type = E820_RAM;
                else
                        e820_type = E820_RESERVED;
		break;
	case EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY:
		e820_type = E820_ACPI;
		break;
	case EFI_ACPI_MEMORY_NVS:
		e820_type = E820_NVS;
		break;
	case EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY:
		e820_type = E820_UNUSUABLE;
		break;
	default:
		e820_type = E820_RESERVED;
		break;
	}

Personally, it's not clear to me if this should do add any non-memory
ranges, as the boot loader should have done that, but I guess in this
particular case we have already horked out.

Another problem is that the comment is wrong.  sanitize_e820_map() will
coalesce adjacent entries, as it should.

Finally, randomly definiting a standard value in E820 with new semantics
isn't going to fly; it's likely to conflict with official allocations.

	-hpa
-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.


--
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/