[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <57FE75520200007800116D27@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:39:30 -0600
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Haozhong Zhang" <haozhong.zhang@...el.com>,
"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc: "Stefano Stabellini" <stefano@...reto.com>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>, <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Xiao Guangrong" <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>,
"Ross Zwisler" <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"Juergen Gross" <JGross@...e.com>,
"Johannes Thumshirn" <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC KERNEL PATCH 0/2] Add Dom0 NVDIMM support
for Xen
>>> On 12.10.16 at 16:58, <haozhong.zhang@...el.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/16 05:32 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 12.10.16 at 12:33, <haozhong.zhang@...el.com> wrote:
>>> The layout is shown as the following diagram.
>>>
>>> +---------------+-----------+-------+----------+--------------+
>>> | whatever used | Partition | Super | Reserved | /dev/pmem0p1 |
>>> | by kernel | Table | Block | for Xen | |
>>> +---------------+-----------+-------+----------+--------------+
>>> \_____________________ _______________________/
>>> V
>>> /dev/pmem0
>>
>>I have to admit that I dislike this, for not being OS-agnostic.
>>Neither should there be any Xen-specific region, nor should the
>>"whatever used by kernel" one be restricted to just Linux. What
>>I could see is an OS-reserved area ahead of the partition table,
>>the exact usage of which depends on which OS is currently
>>running (and in the Xen case this might be both Xen _and_ the
>>Dom0 kernel, arbitrated by a tbd protocol). After all, when
>>running under Xen, the Dom0 may not have a need for as much
>>control data as it has when running on bare hardware, for it
>>controlling less (if any) of the actual memory ranges when Xen
>>is present.
>>
>
> Isn't this OS-reserved area still not OS-agnostic, as it requires OS
> to know where the reserved area is? Or do you mean it's not if it's
> defined by a protocol that is accepted by all OSes?
The latter - we clearly won't get away without some agreement on
where to retrieve position and size of this area. I was simply
assuming that such a protocol already exists.
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists