From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757339Ab0EZRmx (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 13:42:53 -0400 Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.179.30]:56257 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755120Ab0EZRmw (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 13:42:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4BFD5D98.6090408@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:42:48 -0700 From: Mike Travis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yinghai Lu CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , x86@kernel.org, Suresh Siddha , Rusty Russell , Jens Axboe , Jack Steiner , LKML , jkosina@novell.com Subject: Re: [Patch 1/1] x86 efi: Fill all reserved memmap entries if add_efi_memmap specified. References: <4BEAEF10.9040809@sgi.com> <4BEB0D5F.8070806@oracle.com> <4BEB1781.1080907@sgi.com> <4BEC6C94.2020100@sgi.com> <4BEC73B2.2020909@oracle.com> <4BEC7544.1080506@sgi.com> <4BEC8161.6050206@zytor.com> <4BFC5080.6030103@sgi.com> <4BFC5217.6060804@zytor.com> <4BFC5330.5080907@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Mike Travis wrote: >> >> H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> On 05/25/2010 03:34 PM, Mike Travis wrote: >>>> H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>>> On 05/13/2010 02:55 PM, Mike Travis wrote: >>>>>> I saw that too, and wondered why e820_saved did not >>>>>> have the extra entries. The comment indicates it >>>>>> should. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm on the system tonight and will investigate this >>>>>> further. >>>>>> >>>>> e820_saved lacks the extra entries because they aren't being passed in >>>>> from the bootloader, as they should, and instead you're using >>>>> add_efi_memmap which is, as far as the kernel is concerned, a post-boot >>>>> modification. >>>>> >>>>> That being said, add_efi_memmap does come from the firmware, and as such >>>>> it would be legitimate for it to add them to e820_saved. >>>>> >>>>> -hpa >>>> Did this last patch meet expectations? >>>> >>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127474230623061&w=4 >>>> >>> I'm concerned about calling sanitize_e820_map() on e820_saved; it is >>> supposed to reflect the raw data as reported by the source, and >>> sanitizing it would corrupt that. >>> >>> -hpa >> I wondered about that. Sanitize seems to remove adjacent >> entries, etc. making the map smaller, but I couldn't detect >> any real differences (though admittedly I didn't do a byte >> by byte comparison.) >> >> But I'll submit another with that call removed. > > can you use updated boot loader instead? > > Also we should drop add_efi_memmap if possible. > > YH I'm open for suggestions on how to improve this, but we are shipping systems very soon and I don't think we'll get any other change into the system until the next update. Thanks, Mike