From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>,
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:17:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51688803.8020401@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5168208B.7050107@zytor.com>
On 04/12/2013 07:56 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 07:31 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> I also have to admit that I don't see the difference between /dev/mem
>>> and /dev/oldmem, as the former allows access to memory ranges outside
>>> the ones used by the current kernel, which is what the oldmem device
>>> seems to be intended to od.
It varies from arch to arch of course.
But, /dev/mem has restrictions on it, like CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM or the
ARCH_HAS_VALID_PHYS_ADDR_RANGE. There's a lot of stuff that depends on
it, *and* folks have tried to fix it up so that it's not _as_ blatant of
a way to completely screw your system.
/dev/mem also tries to be nice to arches that have restrictions like:
> /*
> * On ia64 if a page has been mapped somewhere as
> * uncached, then it must also be accessed uncached
> * by the kernel or data corruption may occur
> */
I think /dev/oldmem isn't so nice and could actually cause some real
problems if used on ia64 where the cached/uncached accesses are mixed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-12 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1365683207-42425-1-git-send-email-trenn@suse.de>
[not found] ` <1365683207-42425-6-git-send-email-trenn@suse.de>
2013-04-11 14:55 ` [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table instead of memmap= boot parameter Yinghai Lu
2013-04-11 15:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 14:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2013-04-12 14:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 22:17 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2013-04-12 23:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-15 4:52 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 5:58 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-15 7:58 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-04-15 14:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-12 12:24 ` Thomas Renninger
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=51688803.8020401@sr71.net \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=cpw@sgi.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trenn@suse.de \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=yinghai@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