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
next prev parent 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).