[PATCH 0/8] arm64: improved memory map handling for /dev/mem, ACPI etc

[Dave Young]

On 12/30/14 at 01:21pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 30 December 2014 at 09:25, Dave Young <dyoung at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 12/29/14 at 09:22am, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 26 December 2014 at 09:35, Dave Young <dyoung at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On 12/22/14 at 07:08pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >> This series was split off from the UEFI virtmap for kexec series that I posted
> >> >> earlier today. The main purpose is to deal with the need to classify memory
> >> >> ranges as RAM or non-RAM in a consistent and comprehensive manner. This series
> >> >> applies on top of the other series.
> >> >>
> >> >> Patch #1 avoids an early panic if the UEFI memory map is available but UEFI
> >> >> support itself fails to initialize. In this case, there is no need to panic
> >> >> early, and we have a better chance of being able to inform the user if we deal
> >> >> with this error condition at a later time.
> >> >>
> >> >> Patch #2 adds iomem resource registration of UEFI memory regions. This is
> >> >> necessary because otherwise, drivers could potentially claim regions that
> >> >> are in active use by the firmware. This applies to both MMIO (NOR flash, RTC)
> >> >> and RAM ranges (runtime services code and data).
> >> >>
> >> >> Patch #3-6 adds support to UEFI and non-UEFI code paths to record all memory
> >> >> known to the system in the 'physmem' memblock table (if enabled). This fulfils
> >> >> a need in the /dev/mem and (upcoming) ACPI layers to be able to classify ranges
> >> >> as being backed by normal RAM even if they are not covered by the 'memory'
> >> >> memblock table, and are hence not covered by the linear direct mapping.
> >> >> The physmem code is pre-existing code that only needs minor tweaking to be made
> >> >> suitable for this purpose.
> >> >>
> >> >> Patch #7 enables the 'physmem' memblock table for arm64, and wires it into the
> >> >> handling of /dev/mem mappings, both to decide whether it should be mapped as
> >> >> MT_NORMAL, and whether read-write access can be allowed. (Non-RAM regions can
> >> >> be mapped read-write as long as they are not claimed by a driver in the iomem
> >> >> resource table. RAM regions can only be mapped read-only, and only if they are
> >> >> not covered by the 'memory' memblock table, and hence not covered by the linear
> >> >> mapping)
> >> >>
> >> >> Finally, patch #8 changes the way the virtual memory map is handled by the
> >> >> early UEFI code. Specifically, it memblock_remove()s rather than _reserves()
> >> >> UEFI reserved RAM regions, so that they are removed entirely from the linear
> >> >> mapping.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ard Biesheuvel (8):
> >> >>   arm64/efi: use UEFI memory map unconditionally if available
> >> >>   arm64/efi: register UEFI reserved regions as iomem resources
> >> >>   memblock: add physmem to memblock_dump_all() output
> >> >>   memblock: introduce memblock_add_phys() and memblock_is_physmem()
> >> >>   of: fdt: register physmem in early_init_dt_scan_memory()
> >> >>   arm64/efi: register physmem in reserve_regions()
> >> >>   arm64: use 'physmem' memblock to improve CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM handling
> >> >>   arm64/efi: memblock_remove rather than _reserve UEFI reserved RAM
> >> >
> >> > Ard, It is much cleaner for this splitting.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for having a look.
> >>
> >> > I wonder if some of them can become general code such as register reserved
> >> > regions as iomem resources?
> >> >
> >>
> >> AFAICT, the x86 code adds reservations for such regions to the E820
> >> memory map, which in turn is used to memblock_reserve() the actual
> >> memory. Also, sharing of the RTC is handled with a dedicated mutex in
> >> the runtime services wrapper code (and x86 does not even use the time
> >> related runtime services as they are broken on many firmware
> >> implementations) so blindly applying the same logic to x86 or ia64
> >> would likely break stuff.
> >
> > Ok, I think bootloader will pass the E820 ranges though it can not tell
> > which region is for what.
> >
> >>
> >> Do you (or Mark) have any feedback on the utility of this series in
> >> the ACPI context? I failed to mention in the cover letter that
> >> memblock_is_physmem() now serves the purpose of page_is_ram(), i.e.,
> >> whether a physical region is backed by a slice of RAM that was left
> >> out of the kernel's linear mapping.
> >
> > I will do some test later along with the stable mapping stuff.

The whole patchset works well without the last patch.

I found that patch 8/8 caused system boot hangs very early.
Just after stub print something about virtmap..

Any idea about it? I tested your patches upon 3.18.


> >
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> > BTW, with previous stable mapping patches on modified 3.18 tree kexec kernel
> > panics because of damaged efi mempry map arrays. It contains some
> > random value instead of right addresses so that virt_to_phys return
> > same value for vendor field. Will do more debugging maybe I missed something.
> > Any clue for debugging above issue will be appreciated.
> >
> 
> No clues, unfortunately. The memory map is not used after early boot,
> so it may be getting clobbered at any point between the first boot and
> the second boot.

It was caused by uefi sys table/mmap start addresses changes.
I generate dtb from acpi=off boot /proc/device-tree, and use the dtb for kexec
boot, but seems mmap addresses changes sometimes.

Do you know have plan or status in Linaro for exporting dtb for acpi booting?

Thanks
Dave