[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080612050609.88a8cf7f.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:06:09 -0500
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
Subject: Confusions with reserve_early, reserve_bootmem, e820, efi, ... on
x86_64
Bernhard, Johannes, Huang, and Yinghai:
I am running into some complications with reserve_bootmem vs
reserve_early, and a reserve_early of "EFI memmap" in the
efi_reserve_early() routine conflicting with reserve_early of
"BIOS reserved" in reserve_ebda_region().
This is on x86_64 arch, using Ingo's x86-latest, with possibly
still buggy EFI firmware in a lab system I'm helping to develop.
I have three concerns:
1) The find_overlapped_early() check called from reserve_early is
failing on my lab system , causing panic, when it tries to
register "EFI memmap" at addresses <0xe0660, 0xe0778> that
overlaps with the "BIOS reserved" early reserve at addresses
<0x9f000, 0x100000>
2) I'm a bit puzzled and concerned when I notice that what had been
two separate reserve_ebda_region() routines, one for x86 32 and
one for x86 64 have now become one routine -- the problem being
that the earlier pair of these two reserve_ebda_region() routines
were not the same. They differed by their last line:
--- /tmp/pj32 2008-06-12 02:09:03.414709042 -0700
+++ /tmp/pj64 2008-06-12 02:08:42.458348590 -0700
@@ -33,5 +33,5 @@ static void __init reserve_ebda_region(v
lowmem = 0x9f000;
/* reserve all memory between lowmem and the 1MB mark */
- reserve_bootmem(lowmem, 0x100000 - lowmem, BOOTMEM_DEFAULT);
+ reserve_early(lowmem, 0x100000, "BIOS reserved");
}
Perhaps this is fine ... I was just surprised to see what was
essentially a change for the x86 32 side from reserve_bootmem(),
to what is now called in both cases, reserve_early()
3) Most likely my real problem is with my the EFI firmware on my
lab system that is still under development. It might be setting
up addresses incorrectly. However I am unable to make sense of
the several patches in this area over the last week.
I am unsure if what is there now should work, or whether my
concern (1) above might indicate a still outstanding issue with
the current code.
If anything I stated as fact above is incorrect, then I apologize.
I'm not entirely sure I have my details correct here.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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