From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1OkoXh-0002sx-La for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:31:14 +0000 Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:31:10 +0900 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH][EFI] Run EFI in physical mode Message-ID: <20100816013109.GS10165@verge.net.au> References: <4C65C630.4070008@zytor.com> <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D53015B2DAD87@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <4C65D263.6050904@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Tony Luck Cc: Takao Indoh , "nhorman@tuxdriver.com" , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "Eric W. Biederman" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "vgoyal@redhat.com" On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:36:03PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > I guess my real question was "is this something IA64 could benefit from > > and/or could we make the IA64 code more similar to the x86 bits"? > > If Eric's recollection about the "weird floating point fixup routines"[1] > performance issues are correct - then ia64 won't want to do this. I proposed something similar to this for ia64 at one point to solve the problem of kexecing to Xen - which at that time mapped EFI to a different location to Linux. As I recall, the idea was shot-down by SGI Altix people on the basis potential performance problems. I don't recall any reasons more specific than that being given (and to be honest I was less than happy about it at the time). In the end I moved EFI in Xen to match Linux and have been able to ignore the problem ever since. Though as Eric pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there is ample scope for incompatibilities with future/other kernels. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752023Ab0HPBbO (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:31:14 -0400 Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]:49187 "EHLO kirsty.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751891Ab0HPBbN (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:31:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:31:10 +0900 From: Simon Horman To: Tony Luck Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , "Eric W. Biederman" , Takao Indoh , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "vgoyal@redhat.com" , "nhorman@tuxdriver.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH][EFI] Run EFI in physical mode Message-ID: <20100816013109.GS10165@verge.net.au> References: <4C65C630.4070008@zytor.com> <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D53015B2DAD87@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <4C65D263.6050904@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:36:03PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > I guess my real question was "is this something IA64 could benefit from > > and/or could we make the IA64 code more similar to the x86 bits"? > > If Eric's recollection about the "weird floating point fixup routines"[1] > performance issues are correct - then ia64 won't want to do this. I proposed something similar to this for ia64 at one point to solve the problem of kexecing to Xen - which at that time mapped EFI to a different location to Linux. As I recall, the idea was shot-down by SGI Altix people on the basis potential performance problems. I don't recall any reasons more specific than that being given (and to be honest I was less than happy about it at the time). In the end I moved EFI in Xen to match Linux and have been able to ignore the problem ever since. Though as Eric pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there is ample scope for incompatibilities with future/other kernels.