LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <email@example.com>
To: "Andi Kleen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
<email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: [patch 02/11] PAT x86: Map only usable memory in x86_64 identity map and kernel text
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:25:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <924EFEDD5F540B4284297C4DC59F3DEE5A29A1@orsmsx423.amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
>[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Andi Kleen
>Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:17 PM
>To: Pallipadi, Venkatesh
>Cc: Andi Kleen; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
>firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
>email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Siddha, Suresh B
>Subject: Re: [patch 02/11] PAT x86: Map only usable memory in
>x86_64 identity map and kernel text
>> I think it is unsafe to access any reserved areas through
>"WB" not just
>> mmio regions. In the above case 0xe0000000-0xf0000000 is one such
>That is 2MB aligned.
That e820 also has a reserved here at 0x9d000.
BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009cc00 (usable)
BIOS-e820: 000000000009cc00 - 00000000000a0000 (reserved)
BIOS-e820: 00000000000cc000 - 00000000000d0000 (reserved)
If we keep mapping for such pages, it will be problematic as if a driver
later does a ioremap, then we have to go through split-pages and cpa.
With not mapping any reserved regions at all, we can avoid cpa for all
maps of reserved regions. Reducing the complications at setup will make
code more complicated at ioremap, etc.
Most of the holes/reserved areas will be 2M aligned, other than initial
2M and possible 2M around ACPI region. So, we may end up mapping some of
those pages with small pages. Even though it was not enforced until now,
I feel that is required for correctness.
>> >Exactly it's already broken.
>> >Anyways if someone accesses mmio through /dev/mem I think they
>> >want the real mappings, not a zero page. And dev/mem
>> >The trick is just to do it without caching attribute violations,
>> >but with mattr it is possible.
>> I don't like /dev/mem supporting access to mmio. We do not know what
>But it always did that. I'm sure you'll break stuff if you forbid
>> attributes to use for these regions. We can potentially map
>> pages uncacheable.
>That is what current /dev/mem does.
May be I am missing something. But, I don't think I saw /dev/mem
checking whether some region is reserved and mapping those pages as
uncacheable. As I though, its mostly done as MTRR has such setting. If I
do dd of devmem which ends up reading all reserved regions today, I see
one of my systems dying horribly with NMI dazed and confused and the
other gets SCSI errors etc. I am not sure how can some apps depend on
reading mmio regions through /dev/mem. Any particular app you are
>> But there may be cases where reading an address can
>> block too possibly?
>Yes sure, machine may hang, but that was always the case and I don't
>think it can be changed.
>> >> >Anyways you could make that a zillion times more simple by
>> >> >just rounding
>> >> >the e820 areas to 2MB -- for the holes only that should be
>> >ok I think;
>> >> >i would expect them to be near always already suitably aligned.
>> >> >
>> >> >In short this can be all done much simpler.
>> >> On systems I tested, ACPI regions are typically not 2MB
>> >aligned. And on
>> >ACPI regions don't need to be unmapped.
>> >> some systems there are few 4k pages of reserved holes just before
>> >reserved shouldn't be unmapped, just holes. Do they have holes
>> >there or reserved areas?
>> >I still hope 2MB alignment will work out.
>> E820 above has a combination of reserved and holes.
>> The problem is that we end up depending on specific e820s
>> specific problems/workarounds. This is not a real problem for i386 at
>> all, as we map only < 1G memory there.
>First there is the 2GB and in theory 1/3 GB split too which
>And then in theory someone could put mmio in the first 1GB
>in the 1MB hole)
>I don't think you can ignore i386 here.
OK. I was thinking that we will have smaller subset of systems to worry
about with x86_64. With above, yes. We need to worry about i386 as well.
Other than the complicated code, do you see any issues of identity
mapping only "usable" and "ACPI" regions as per e820? We can possible
try to simplify the code, if that is the only concern.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-10 22:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-10 18:48 [patch 00/11] PAT x86: PAT support for x86 venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 01/11] PAT x86: Make acpi/other drivers map memory instead of assuming identity map venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 02/11] PAT x86: Map only usable memory in x86_64 identity map and kernel text venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 19:06 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-10 19:17 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2008-01-10 19:28 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-10 20:50 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2008-01-10 21:16 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-10 22:25 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh [this message]
2008-01-10 22:35 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-14 16:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-14 21:21 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2008-01-14 21:28 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-15 22:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-15 23:11 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-15 23:21 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2008-01-18 12:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-18 13:12 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-18 16:46 ` Jesse Barnes
2008-01-18 18:12 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-18 19:02 ` Jesse Barnes
2008-01-19 2:42 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-10 21:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-10 21:57 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2008-01-10 22:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-10 22:27 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2008-01-10 22:50 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-18 18:27 ` Dave Jones
2008-01-18 20:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 03/11] PAT x86: Map only usable memory in i386 identity map venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 19:10 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 04/11] PAT x86: Basic PAT implementation venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 05/11] PAT x86: drm driver changes for PAT venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 06/11] PAT x86: Refactoring i386 cpa venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 19:00 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-14 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 07/11] PAT x86: pat-conflict resolution using linear list venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 19:13 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-10 20:08 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 08/11] PAT x86: pci mmap conlfict patch venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 09/11] PAT x86: Add ioremap_wc support venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 19:08 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-10 19:25 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2008-01-12 0:18 ` Roland Dreier
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 10/11] PAT x86: Handle /dev/mem mappings venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 18:48 ` [patch 11/11] PAT x86: Expose uc and wc interfaces in /sysfs vor pci_mmap_resource venkatesh.pallipadi
2008-01-10 19:43 ` Greg KH
2008-01-10 20:54 ` [patch 11/11] PAT x86: Expose uc and wc interfaces in /sysfsvor pci_mmap_resource Pallipadi, Venkatesh
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--subject='RE: [patch 02/11] PAT x86: Map only usable memory in x86_64 identity map and kernel text' \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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).