[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e7e87306-bb04-2d4f-7e7f-aabd40dccb3b@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:46:17 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>, Alex Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] RISC-V: enable XIP
>>> Also, will that memory properly be exposed in the resource tree as
>>> System RAM (e.g., /proc/iomem) ? Otherwise some things (/proc/kcore)
>>> won't work as expected - the kernel won't be included in a dump.
>
> Do we really need a XIP kernel to included in kdump?
> And does not it sound weird to expose flash as System RAM in /proc/iomem? ;-)
See my other mail, maybe we actually want something different.
>
>> I have just checked and it does not appear in /proc/iomem.
>>
>> Ok your conclusion would be to have struct page, I'm going to implement this
>> version then using memblock as you described.
>
> I'm not sure this is required. With XIP kernel text never gets into RAM, so
> it does not seem to require struct page.
>
> XIP by definition has some limitations relatively to "normal" operation,
> so lack of kdump could be one of them.
I agree.
>
> I might be wrong, but IMHO, artificially creating a memory map for part of
> flash would cause more problems in the long run.
Can you elaborate?
>
> BTW, how does XIP account the kernel text on other architectures that
> implement it?
Interesting point, I thought XIP would be something new on RISC-V (well,
at least to me :) ). If that concept exists already, we better mimic
what existing implementations do.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists