From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/2] Early use of boot service memory Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:12:57 -0800 Message-ID: <528EAF99.1010503@zytor.com> References: <1385067686-73500-1-git-send-email-jerry.hoemann@hp.com> <20131121230744.GA31592@srcf.ucam.org> <528E94D1.2050809@zytor.com> <20131121233705.GA32121@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131121233705.GA32121@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Jerry Hoemann , rob@landley.net, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, matt.fleming@intel.com, yinghai@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@suse.de, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, penberg@kernel.org, mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com, vgoyal@redhat.com List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 11/21/2013 03:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:18:41PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 11/21/2013 03:07 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> This is a problem we have to solve, but I don't think this is the right >>> way to solve it. Why do we not just reattempt to perform the allocation >>> immediately after we've freed the boot services regions? >>> >> >> Wouldn't the memory map already have gotten scrambled all to hell by then? > > If we couldn't map a 64MB region in low memory earlier then it's likely > to have been because there was a 64MB or greater boot services region. > I thought the problem was that they wanted to map a fairly large chunk for faster kdump and fragmentation was being a problem. -hpa