linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] arm64/efi: prefer AllocatePages() over efi_low_alloc() for vmlinux
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:27:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150729102717.GA4797@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu_EtOV8wannMLG87ai_x3ARu4rUSo9D6w2DQ+Kb5Kjn-A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:24:23PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 28 July 2015 at 23:17, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jul, at 01:38:27PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> When allocating memory for the kernel image, try the AllocatePages()
> >> boot service to obtain memory at the preferred offset of
> >> 'dram_base + TEXT_OFFSET', and only revert to efi_low_alloc() if that
> >> fails. This is the only way to allocate at the base of DRAM if DRAM
> >> starts at 0x0, since efi_low_alloc() refuses to allocate at 0x0.
> >>
> >> Tested-by: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >> v2:
> >> - reshuffle code flow to make it more logical, and have only a single
> >>   memcpy() invocation at the end of the function
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/kernel/efi-stub.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > Would it be easier if we allow efi_low_alloc() to return 0x0 for some
> > uses? If you don't need the preference for low allocations, probably
> > not, but I don't want to see us working around limitations in
> > efi_low_alloc() instead of just fixing it.
> >
> 
> This workaround fixes another issue as well: the arm64 kernel needs to
> be loaded 512 KB above a 2MB aligned boundary, and using
> efi_low_alloc() as we do loses (2 MB - 512 KB) at the bottom if part
> of that 512 KB is occupied, since efi_low_alloc() is not aware of the
> fact that the first 512 KB will remain unused.
> 
> What would be most helpful is if efi_low_alloc() could take an offset
> param in addition to the alignment, i.e., alignment == 2MB and offset
> == 512 KB. The offset would default to 0, reverting to the original
> behavior.
> 
> If you'd be ok with such a change, I can propose it instead, and wire
> it up into this function.

I already merged the original patch, so if you propose anything extra,
please do it on top of that!

Will

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-07-29 10:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-07-24 11:38 [PATCH v2] arm64/efi: prefer AllocatePages() over efi_low_alloc() for vmlinux Ard Biesheuvel
2015-07-24 13:04 ` Mark Rutland
2015-07-28 21:17 ` Matt Fleming
2015-07-28 21:24   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-07-28 22:06     ` Matt Fleming
2015-07-29 10:27     ` Will Deacon [this message]
2015-10-27 21:15 ` Timur Tabi

Reply instructions:

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150729102717.GA4797@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).