From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
George Kennedy <george.kennedy@oracle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
x86 Maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: x86: Call acpi_boot_table_init() after acpi_table_upgrade()
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:13:11 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YHakFzNYBS6YLpPi@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5cfba81b-fe73-b604-2442-011deee9bcb3@redhat.com>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 09:42:01AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.04.21 19:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 7:43 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 13.04.21 16:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Commit 1a1c130ab757 ("ACPI: tables: x86: Reserve memory occupied by
> > > > ACPI tables") attempted to address an issue with reserving the memory
> > > > occupied by ACPI tables, but it broke the initrd-based table override
> > > > mechanism relied on by multiple users.
> > > >
> > > > To restore the initrd-based ACPI table override functionality, move
> > > > the acpi_boot_table_init() invocation in setup_arch() on x86 after
> > > > the acpi_table_upgrade() one.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 1a1c130ab757 ("ACPI: tables: x86: Reserve memory occupied by ACPI tables")
> > > > Reported-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> > > > Tested-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > George, can you please check if this reintroduces the issue addressed by
> > > > the above commit for you?
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 5 ++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Index: linux-pm/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-pm.orig/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > > > +++ linux-pm/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > > > @@ -1045,9 +1045,6 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> > > >
> > > > cleanup_highmap();
> > > >
> > > > - /* Look for ACPI tables and reserve memory occupied by them. */
> > > > - acpi_boot_table_init();
> > > > -
> > > > memblock_set_current_limit(ISA_END_ADDRESS);
> > > > e820__memblock_setup();
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1132,6 +1129,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> > > > reserve_initrd();
> > > >
> > > > acpi_table_upgrade();
> > > > + /* Look for ACPI tables and reserve memory occupied by them. */
> > > > + acpi_boot_table_init();
> > > >
> > > > vsmp_init();
> > >
> > > This is fairly late; especially, it's after actual allocations -- see
> > > e820__memblock_alloc_reserved_mpc_new().
> > >
> > > Can't the table upgrade mechanism fix up when adjusting something?
> >
> > Not at this point of the cycle I'm afraid.
> >
> > > Some details on what actually breaks would be helpful.
> >
> > Generally speaking, the table overrides that come from the initrd are
> > not taken into account if acpi_boot_table_init() runs before
> > acpi_table_upgrade() and the latter cannot run before
> > reserve_initrd().
>
> I see. (looking at Documentation/acpi/initrd_table_override.txt I understand
> what acpi table overrides are for :) )
>
> >
> > Honestly, I'm not sure how much effort it would take to untangle this ATM.
>
> Also true; ideally, we wouldn't have any allocations (find+reserve) before
> ordinary reservations are done.
>
> However, I have no idea if we can move
> e820__memblock_alloc_reserved_mpc_new() and reserve_real_mode() around
> easily. Also, reserve_initrd()->relocate_initrd() does allocations.
Even if we can move e820__memblock_alloc_reserved_mpc_new() and
reserve_real_mode(), the allocation in reserve_initrd() has to be before
the tables override, we would only reduce the probability of allocating an
ACPI page.
I think what we can do is to override the ACPI tables separately from their
initial parsing. Rafael, what do you say?
> This is a mess.
True :(
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-14 8:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-13 14:01 [PATCH] ACPI: x86: Call acpi_boot_table_init() after acpi_table_upgrade() Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-04-13 17:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-13 17:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-04-14 7:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 8:13 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2021-04-14 10:48 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-04-13 21:28 ` George Kennedy
2021-04-26 15:51 ` George Kennedy
2021-04-26 17:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=YHakFzNYBS6YLpPi@linux.ibm.com \
--to=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=george.kennedy@oracle.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--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