From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Design doc of adding ACPI support for arm64 on Xen
 - version 5
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:54:14 +0100
Message-ID: <1441202054.26292.209.camel@citrix.com>
References: <55E02DC5.4090202@huawei.com>	<55E05A2F.1090305@citrix.com>
	<55E1042C.6000308@linaro.org>	<55E43E36.90108@citrix.com>
	<55E4428C.7020308@huawei.com>	<55E449DA.6080309@citrix.com>
	<55E525A8.3010302@huawei.com>	<55E58BC7.7090403@citrix.com>
	<55E59B77.2090905@huawei.com> <55E5AADB.70503@citrix.com>
	<55E690DC.6000303@huawei.com> <55E6D8EA.4020008@citrix.com>
	<55E6E56C.80100@linaro.org> <55E6F110.7010704@citrix.com>
	<1441200364.26292.190.camel@citrix.com> <55E6FE11.3060401@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <55E6FE11.3060401@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>, Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>, Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@huawei.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Cc: Hangaohuai <hangaohuai@huawei.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, andrew@fubar.geek.nz, "Huangpeng (Peter)" <peter.huangpeng@huawei.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>, Parth Dixit <parth.dixit@linaro.org>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 14:48 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 02/09/15 14:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > I think the problem is how you reserved this region in the EFI 
> > > > > memory
> > > > > table. From what I saw, you marked this new memory with 
> > > > > EFI_MEMORY_WB
> > > > > (which means that the region can be usable by Linux).
> > > > > 
> > > > Yes, I mark it with EFI_MEMORY_WB. Is this right?
> > > 
> > > I would say no, but it's only because I looked at the kernel code 
> > > quickly.
> > > 
> > > You have to looks how ACPI region/UEFI tables are described in the 
> > > host
> > > EFI memory map and mimicking for the DOM0 EFI memory map.
> > 
> > Surely it is the type (EfiACPIReclaimMemory, EfiACPIMemoryNVS etc) and 
> > not
> > the mapping attributes which should control whether an OS considers a
> > region usable? At least until the OS is done parsing tables neither of
> > those are usable (which implies we want NVS as our type, unless the 
> > memory
> > is intended to be reclaimed by dom0, implying it should own it).
> 
> It looks like that Linux on ARM64 is considering any region with
> EFI_MEMORY_WB set as normal RAM and will try to add as System RAM (see
> reserve_regions in arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c).

It's hard to believe this isn't a bug... It's probably worth asking the
Linux maintainers about this.

On first glance it seems to me that the is_reserve_region check ought to be
before the is_normal_ram one, not vice versa. But what do I know...

> At the same time, having WB set for a region that should be read-only
> looks like wrong to me.

it does seem a bit meaningless at least, if not wrong.

> 
> Regards,
>