From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, matt.fleming@linux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: use EFI to deal with platform wall clock
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:07:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120516130700.GA21499@srcf.ucam.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FB3C0ED020000780008418E@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:59:57PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.05.12 at 14:39, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> > Could you elaborate on that a little?
>
> There are systems where RAM on individual nodes is always
> starting at e.g. a 1Tb boundary. Obviously there can (at
> least theoretically) be anything in between, and hence
> assuming that __va() is usable here is simply wrong, as likely
> no mapping was created at all for the hole space (or if there
> is one, it would conflict with the one to be established here
> in the EfiMemoryMappedIO case).
Ok, that does sound like it needs fixing.
> > Platforms don't correctly deal with the case where you make physical
> > calls after ExitBootServices(). We tried running in physical mode. It
> > simply doesn't work.
>
> Interesting, especially as we're using physical mode exclusively so
> far in Xen. That's a platform issue though, and working around
> it by (silently!) sacrificing other functionality is questionable imo.
> It should at best be an option (default off), so that on systems
> where physical mode works, kexec can work too.
There was a patchset posted that provided that option. We experimented
with it in RHEL for a while and found that physical mode simply isn't
reliable - no other OS uses it, so it's entirely untested on most
platforms.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-16 13:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-15 12:18 [PATCH] x86-64: use EFI to deal with platform wall clock Jan Beulich
2012-05-15 12:47 ` Matthew Garrett
2012-05-15 13:19 ` Jan Beulich
2012-05-15 13:20 ` Matthew Garrett
2012-05-16 12:18 ` Jan Beulich
2012-05-16 12:39 ` Matthew Garrett
2012-05-16 12:59 ` Jan Beulich
2012-05-16 13:07 ` Matthew Garrett [this message]
2012-05-17 8:31 ` Matt Fleming
2012-05-25 15:00 ` Jan Beulich
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-05-25 15:20 Jan Beulich
2012-05-25 15:24 ` Matthew Garrett
2012-05-25 15:30 ` Jan Beulich
2012-05-25 15:34 ` Matthew Garrett
2012-06-06 9:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-05-26 10:26 ` Matt Fleming
2012-06-04 8:11 ` Jan Beulich
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=20120516130700.GA21499@srcf.ucam.org \
--to=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt.fleming@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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