[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161124192659.GH2213@rric.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 20:26:59 +0100
From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@...ium.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
CC: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: Fix memmap to be initialized for the entire
section
Ard,
> > >> On 24 November 2016 at 13:51, Robert Richter <robert.richter@...ium.com> wrote:
> > >> > On 24.11.16 13:44:31, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >> Regions containing firmware tables are owned by the firmware, and it
> > >> is the firmware that tells us which memory attributes we are allowed
> > >> to use. If those attributes include WB, it is perfectly legal to use a
> > >> cacheable mapping. That does *not* mean they should be covered by the
> > >> linear mapping. The linear mapping is read-write-non-exec, for
> > >> instance, and we may prefer to use a read-only mapping and/or
> > >> executable mapping.
> > >
> > > Ok, I am going to fix try_ram_remap().
I revisited the code and it is working well already since:
e7cd190385d1 arm64: mark reserved memblock regions explicitly in iomem
Now, try_ram_remap() is only called if the region to be mapped is
entirely in IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM. This is only true for normal mem
ranges and not NOMAP mem. region_intersects() then returns
REGION_INTERSECTS and calls try_ram_remap(). For the NOMAP memory case
REGION_DISJOINT would be returned and thus arch_memremap_wb() being
called directly. Before the e7cd190385d1 change try_ram_remap() was
called also for nomap regions.
So we can leave memremap() as it is and just apply this patch
unmodified. What do you think? Please ack.
I am going to prepare the pfn_is_ram() change in addition to this
patch, but that should not be required for this fix to work correcly.
Thanks,
-Robert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists