[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd5863a2-291a-43e5-7633-c84c1026a31b@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:14:59 +0100
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: sstabellini@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: respect memory size limiting via
mem= parameter
On 11/02/2019 13:06, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>
>> When limiting memory size via kernel parameter "mem=" this should be
>> respected even in case of memory made accessible via a PCI card.
>>
>> Today this kind of memory won't be made usable in initial memory
>> setup as the memory won't be visible in E820 map, but it might be
>> added when adding PCI devices due to corresponding ACPI table entries.
>>
>> Not respecting "mem=" can be corrected by adding a global max_mem_size
>> variable set by parse_memopt() which will result in rejecting adding
>> memory areas resulting in a memory size above the allowed limit.
>
> So historically 'mem=xxxM' was a way to quickly limit RAM.
Right.
> If PCI devices had physical mmio memory areas above this range, we'd
> still expect them to work - the option was really only meant to limit
> RAM.
No, in this case it seems to be real RAM added via PCI. The RAM is
initially present in the E820 map, but the "mem=" will remove it from
there again. During ACPI scan it is found (again) and will be added
via hotplug mechanism, so "mem=" has no effect for that memory.
Juergen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists