[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9D7649D18729DE4BB2BD7B494F7FEDC236CF66@pdsmsx415.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:00:04 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>, <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
"Jeremy Maitin-Shepard" <jbms@....edu>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Kexec Mailing List" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/2] Kexec jump: The first step to kexec base hibernation
>From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@...k.pl]
>This is not the point. There are memory regions that you should not
_restore_,
>because that will cause harm.
>
>> On x86_64, there is another usage of nosave during processing E820
>> memory map. But I don't know why the memory region other than
E820_RAM
>> are marked as nosave. I think only the memory region of type E820_RAM
>> will be thought of normal memory, others will be thought as reserved.
Is
>> it sufficient just to check whether the page is reserved?
>
>No, it's not.
The "/proc/iomem" records information of all memory regions including
"normal RAM" and all kinds of reserved regions, which is backed by
iomem_resource. On x86_64, it is initialized in the exact same way as
nosave region initialization.
I think maybe we can replace the "nosave region" concepts with
"iomem_resource" (maybe need some enhancement).
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists