linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com,
	sstabellini@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: respect memory size limiting via mem= parameter
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:06:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190211120650.GA74879@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190130082233.23840-2-jgross@suse.com>


* Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> wrote:

> When limiting memory size via kernel parameter "mem=" this should be
> respected even in case of memory made accessible via a PCI card.
> 
> Today this kind of memory won't be made usable in initial memory
> setup as the memory won't be visible in E820 map, but it might be
> added when adding PCI devices due to corresponding ACPI table entries.
> 
> Not respecting "mem=" can be corrected by adding a global max_mem_size
> variable set by parse_memopt() which will result in rejecting adding
> memory areas resulting in a memory size above the allowed limit.

So historically 'mem=xxxM' was a way to quickly limit RAM.

If PCI devices had physical mmio memory areas above this range, we'd 
still expect them to work - the option was really only meant to limit 
RAM.

So I'm wondering what the new logic is here - why should an iomem 
resource from a PCI device be ignored? It's a completely separate area 
that might or might not be enumerated in the e820 table - the only 
requirement we have here I think is that it not overlap RAM areas or each 
other (obviously).

So if I understood this new restriction you want mem= to imply, devices 
would start failing to initialize on bare metal when mem= is used?

Thanks,

	Ingo


  reply	other threads:[~2019-02-11 12:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-30  8:22 [PATCH v2 0/2] x86: respect memory size limits Juergen Gross
2019-01-30  8:22 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: respect memory size limiting via mem= parameter Juergen Gross
2019-02-11 12:06   ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2019-02-11 12:14     ` [Xen-devel] " Juergen Gross
2019-02-11 12:23       ` Ingo Molnar
2019-02-11 12:35         ` Juergen Gross
2019-01-30  8:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/xen: dont add memory above max allowed allocation Juergen Gross
2019-01-30 10:59   ` William Kucharski
2019-02-01 18:46   ` Boris Ostrovsky
2019-02-07  6:32     ` Juergen Gross

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=20190211120650.GA74879@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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).