[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA9_cmeDbpQg3XmsKaEb1f+hSVxq5+3DpLm004wiagf_uwbFMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 08:25:58 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...il.com>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] resource: Add @flags to region_intersects()
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 11:01 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:54:19AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
>> > > Adding a new type for regular memory will require inspecting the
>> > > codes using IORESOURCE_MEM currently, and modify them to use the new
>> > > type if their target ranges are regular memory. There are many
>> > > references to this type across multiple architectures and drivers,
>> > > which make this inspection and testing challenging.
>> >
>> > What's wrong with adding a new type_flags to struct resource and not
>> > touching IORESOURCE_* at all?
>>
>> Bah. Both of these ideas are bogus.
>>
>> Just add a new flag. The bits are already modifiers that you can
>> *combine* to show what kind of resource it is, and we already have
>> things like IORESOURCE_PREFETCH etc, that are in *addition* to the
>> normal IORESOURCE_MEM bit.
>>
>> Just add another modifier: IORESOURCE_RAM.
>>
>> So it would still show up as IORESOURCE_MEM, but it would have
>> additional information specifying that it's actually RAM.
>>
>> If somebody does something like
>>
>> if (res->flags == IORESOURCE_MEM)
>>
>> then they are already completely broken and won't work *anyway*. It's
>> a bitmask, bit a set of values.
>
> Yes, if we can assign new modifiers, that will be quite simple. :-) I
> assume we can allocate new bits from the remaining free bits as follows.
>
> +#define IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM 0x01000000 /* System RAM */
> +#define IORESOURCE_PMEM 0x02000000 /* Persistent memory */
> #define IORESOURCE_EXCLUSIVE 0x08000000 /* Userland may not map
> this resource */
>
> Note, SYSTEM_RAM represents the OS memory, i.e. "System RAM", not any RAM
> ranges.
>
> With the new modifiers, region_intersect() can check these ranges. One
> caveat is that the modifiers are not very extensible for new types as they
> are bit maps. region_intersect() will no longer be capable of checking any
> regions with any given name. I think this is OK since this function was
> introduced recently, and is only used for checking "System RAM" and
> "Persistent Memory" (with this patch series).
IORESOURCE_PMEM is not descriptive enough for the two different types
of pmem in the kernel. How about we go with just
IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM for now since "is_ram()" checks are common. Let
the rest continue to be checked by strcmp().
For example the nvdimm-e820 driver cares about "Persistent Memory
(legacy)", while other forms of pmem may just be "reserved" and only
the driver knows that it is pmem. An IORESOURCE_PMEM would not be
reliable nor descriptive enough.
--
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