public inbox for linux-efi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] efi: Tag memblock reservations of boot services regions as RSRV_KERN
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:55:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <abepXaPWWRdqBYFg@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260306155703.815272-14-ardb+git@google.com>

On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 04:57:06PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> 
> By definition, EFI memory regions of type boot services code or data
> have no special significance to the firmware at runtime, only to the OS.
> In some cases, the firmware will allocate tables and other assets that
> are passed in memory in regions of this type, and leave it up to the OS
> to decide whether or not to treat the allocation as special, or simply
> consume the contents at boot and recycle the RAM for ordinary use. The
> reason for this approach is that it avoids needless memory reservations
> for assets that the OS knows nothing about, and therefore doesn't know
> how to free either.
> 
> This means that any memblock reservations covering such regions can be
> marked as MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN - this is a better match semantically, and
> is useful on x86 to distinguish true reservations from temporary
> reservations that are only needed to work around firmware bugs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>

Acked-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org>

> ---
>  drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> index b2fb92a4bbd1..e4ab7481bbf6 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> @@ -600,7 +600,9 @@ void __init efi_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size)
>  		return;
>  
>  	if (!memblock_is_region_reserved(addr, size))
> -		memblock_reserve(addr, size);
> +		memblock_reserve_kern(addr, size);
> +	else
> +		memblock_reserved_mark_kern(addr, size);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Some architectures (x86) reserve all boot services ranges
> -- 
> 2.53.0.473.g4a7958ca14-goog
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

  reply	other threads:[~2026-03-16  6:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-06 15:57 [RFC PATCH 0/9] efi/x86: Avoid the need to mangle the EFI memory map Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-06 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 1/9] memblock: Permit existing reserved regions to be marked RSRV_KERN Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-16  6:53   ` Mike Rapoport
2026-03-06 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] efi: Tag memblock reservations of boot services regions as RSRV_KERN Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-16  6:55   ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2026-03-06 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 3/9] x86/efi: Omit RSRV_KERN memblock reservations when freeing boot regions Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-06 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 4/9] x86/efi: Defer sub-1M check from unmap to free stage Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-06 15:57 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86/efi: Omit kernel reservations of boot services memory from memmap Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-06 16:00   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-06 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 5/9] x86/efi: Unmap kernel-reserved boot regions from EFI page tables Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-06 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 6/9] x86/efi: Do not rely on EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME bit and avoid entry splitting Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-06 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 7/9] x86/efi: Reuse memory map instead of reallocating it Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-06 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 8/9] x86/efi: Defer compaction of the EFI memory map Ard Biesheuvel
2026-03-06 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 9/9] x86/efi: Free unused tail " Ard Biesheuvel

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=abepXaPWWRdqBYFg@kernel.org \
    --to=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=ardb+git@google.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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