[PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: support bootparam max_addr
Peng Fan
peng.fan at nxp.com
Wed Dec 15 04:05:36 PST 2021
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: support bootparam max_addr
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 09:30:36AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: support bootparam max_addr
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 07:59:45AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: support bootparam max_addr
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 07:56, Peng Fan (OSS)
> > > > > <peng.fan at oss.nxp.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a "mem=[x]" boot parameter, but when there is a whole
> > > > > > reserved by secure TEE, the continuous DRAM area is split with
> > > > > > two
> > > > > memblocks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, DRAM area [0x40000000, 0xffffffff], when TEE uses
> > > > > > [0x50000000, 0x51000000), the memblock will be split into
> > > > > > [0x40000000,
> > > > > > 0x50000000) and [0x51000000, 0xffffffff].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If pass "mem=1024MB", the actually max addr will be 0x81000000.
> > > > > > However if need the max addr be 0x80000000, mem=1008MB
> should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > used.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There also might be multiple other holes that no visible to
> > > > > > Linux, when we wanna to limit the max addr usable by Linux,
> > > > > > using "max_addr=[X]" is much easier than "mem=[X]"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > mem= is a hack already, please don't add another one. Limiting
> > > > > the memory like this is far too tricky, given that the kernel
> > > > > itself and the initrd could end up in memory that is excluded,
> > > > > and we have to go and fix things up if that happens.
> > > >
> > > > We wanna to use the reserved memory with request_mem_region, but
> > > > with commit 86588296acbfb1 ("fdt: Properly handle "no-map" field
> > > > in the memory region ")
> > > >
> > > > request_mem_region will fail, because the reserved memory are now
> > > > as kernel memory.
> > >
> > > request_mem_region() is for MMIO. Why do you want to use it for
> RAM?
> >
> > + Jan, the jailhouse hypervisor owner.
> >
> > There is an out of tree driver
> > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
> >
> ub.com%2Fsiemens%2Fjailhouse%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fdriver%2Fmain.c%23
> L466&
> >
> amp;data=04%7C01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7C0540c0c55ed24688f9f308d
> 9bfb0b7
> >
> 7d%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6377515879788
> 01324%7CU
> >
> nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
> 6Ik1ha
> >
> WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=owLVa3T4jnTPvohHwdEnP2%2F
> uMiUJmYeTc
> > 1TwM0i9iCE%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > The hypervisor jailhouse is loaded after linux boot up, and the
> > hypervisor bin file needs to be loaded into DRAM that reserved in our
> > device tree with node with no map property.
> >
> > And the hypervisor use virtual pci for communication between VMs, The
> > virtual pci use part of the reserved DRAM area as PCI MMIO space.
> >
> > Maybe I should use /memreserve, but not node with no-map property.
>
> So, my understanding is that you need a chunk of memory that Linux does not
> use and does not map into the kernel page tables.
> In that case /memreserve + nomap in the device tree could be a better
> solution than mem=X.
nomap not work now since commit
86588296acbfb1 ("fdt: Properly handle "no-map" field in the memory region ")
I need try /memreserve
BTW, do you think max_addr would be an option be added to memblock
common code mm/memblock.c?
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Peng.
> >
> > >
> > > > So we use "mem=X" to work around the issue, but "mem=X" is not
> > > > user friendly compared with "max_addr=" when there are multiple
> > > > holes used by
> > > others.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Peng.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c index
> > > > > > db63cc885771..3364b5e7a7fe 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > > > > @@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ int pfn_is_map_memory(unsigned long pfn)
> > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pfn_is_map_memory);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static phys_addr_t memory_limit __ro_after_init =
> > > > > > PHYS_ADDR_MAX;
> > > > > > +static phys_addr_t max_addr __ro_after_init = PHYS_ADDR_MAX;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * Limit the memory size that was specified via FDT.
> > > > > > @@ -189,6 +190,18 @@ static int __init early_mem(char *p) }
> > > > > > early_param("mem", early_mem);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +static int __init set_max_addr(char *p) {
> > > > > > + if (!p)
> > > > > > + return 1;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + max_addr = memparse(p, &p) & PAGE_MASK;
> > > > > > + pr_notice("Memory max addr set to 0x%llx\n",
> > > > > > + max_addr);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +early_param("max_addr", set_max_addr);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > void __init arm64_memblock_init(void) {
> > > > > > s64 linear_region_size = PAGE_END -
> > > > > > _PAGE_OFFSET(vabits_actual); @@ -253,6 +266,9 @@ void __init
> > > > > arm64_memblock_init(void)
> > > > > > memblock_add(__pa_symbol(_text), (u64)(_end
> -
> > > > > _text));
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + if (max_addr != PHYS_ADDR_MAX)
> > > > > > + memblock_cap_memory_range(0, max_addr);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD) &&
> > > phys_initrd_size)
> > > > > {
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * Add back the memory we just removed if it
> > > > > > results in the @@ -427,4 +443,9 @@ void dump_mem_limit(void)
> > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > pr_emerg("Memory Limit: none\n");
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (max_addr != PHYS_ADDR_MAX)
> > > > > > + pr_emerg("Max addr: 0x%llx\n", max_addr);
> > > > > > + else
> > > > > > + pr_emerg("Max addr: none\n");
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > > > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > > > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F
> > > > > > %2Fl
> > > > > > ists
> > > > > > .infradead.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flinux-arm-kernel&dat
> > > > > > a=0
> > > 4
> > > > > > %
> > > > > 7C0
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> 1%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7C3ad0ef697ad64542556208d9bf9d1e1f%7C68
> > > > > 6ea1d3bc
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> 2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637751503805222488%7CUnknow
> > > > > n%7CTWFpbG
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> Zsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
> > > > > Mn0%
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> 3D%7C3000&sdata=iKVO4PUPnaRr%2B5gHcXxaaRxBt%2BK%2Fjytg8eQ
> > > > > dCqgqh5o%
> > > > > > 3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely yours,
> > > Mike.
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list