| Message ID | 1457481587-8976-2-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 08 Mar, at 03:59:42PM, David Daney wrote: > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > > There are two problems with the UEFI stub DT memory node removal > routine: > - it deletes nodes as it traverses the tree, which happens to work > but is not supported, as deletion invalidates the node iterator; > - deleting memory nodes entirely may discard annotations in the form > of additional properties on the nodes. > > Since the discovery of DT memory nodes occurs strictly before the > UEFI init sequence, we can simply clear the memblock memory table > before parsing the UEFI memory map. This way, it is no longer > necessary to remove the nodes, so we can remove that logic from the > stub as well. > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com> > --- > drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c | 8 ++++++++ > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c | 24 +----------------------- > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) I've not delved into the rest of the series too deeply, but this looks like a straight forward change. Reviewed-by: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > index 9e15d57..40c9d85 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > @@ -143,6 +143,14 @@ static __init void reserve_regions(void) > if (efi_enabled(EFI_DBG)) > pr_info("Processing EFI memory map:\n"); > > + /* > + * Discard memblocks discovered so far: if there are any at this > + * point, they originate from memory nodes in the DT, and UEFI > + * uses its own memory map instead. > + */ > + memblock_dump_all(); > + memblock_remove(0, ULLONG_MAX); > + > for_each_efi_memory_desc(&memmap, md) { > paddr = md->phys_addr; > npages = md->num_pages; Out of curiosity, could some kind person explain (or point me at a previous explanation for) why we may have both DT memory nodes and a UEFI memory map and why they're not compatible enough to co-exist?
On 18 March 2016 at 13:26, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Mar, at 03:59:42PM, David Daney wrote: >> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> >> >> There are two problems with the UEFI stub DT memory node removal >> routine: >> - it deletes nodes as it traverses the tree, which happens to work >> but is not supported, as deletion invalidates the node iterator; >> - deleting memory nodes entirely may discard annotations in the form >> of additional properties on the nodes. >> >> Since the discovery of DT memory nodes occurs strictly before the >> UEFI init sequence, we can simply clear the memblock memory table >> before parsing the UEFI memory map. This way, it is no longer >> necessary to remove the nodes, so we can remove that logic from the >> stub as well. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com> >> --- >> drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c | 8 ++++++++ >> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c | 24 +----------------------- >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > I've not delved into the rest of the series too deeply, but this looks > like a straight forward change. > > Reviewed-by: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> > >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c >> index 9e15d57..40c9d85 100644 >> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c >> @@ -143,6 +143,14 @@ static __init void reserve_regions(void) >> if (efi_enabled(EFI_DBG)) >> pr_info("Processing EFI memory map:\n"); >> >> + /* >> + * Discard memblocks discovered so far: if there are any at this >> + * point, they originate from memory nodes in the DT, and UEFI >> + * uses its own memory map instead. >> + */ >> + memblock_dump_all(); >> + memblock_remove(0, ULLONG_MAX); >> + >> for_each_efi_memory_desc(&memmap, md) { >> paddr = md->phys_addr; >> npages = md->num_pages; > > Out of curiosity, could some kind person explain (or point me at a > previous explanation for) why we may have both DT memory nodes and a > UEFI memory map and why they're not compatible enough to co-exist? Typically, the UEFI memory map is more restrictive, since it does not only describe where the memory lives, but also which parts of it the firmware has claimed for its own use. So if both memory nodes and the UEFI memory map are available, we must use the latter anyway, and so it makes sense to ignore the former. Alternatively, we could sanity check the memory nodes against the memory map, but it is simpler just to ignore them. However, that caused some problems in the past, since discovering the memory nodes occurs before the EFI entry point is invoked, and so it was decided that we strip the memory nodes rather than ignore them.
On Fri, 18 Mar, at 01:31:59PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Typically, the UEFI memory map is more restrictive, since it does not > only describe where the memory lives, but also which parts of it the > firmware has claimed for its own use. So if both memory nodes and the > UEFI memory map are available, we must use the latter anyway, and so > it makes sense to ignore the former. Alternatively, we could sanity > check the memory nodes against the memory map, but it is simpler just > to ignore them. > > However, that caused some problems in the past, since discovering the > memory nodes occurs before the EFI entry point is invoked, and so it > was decided that we strip the memory nodes rather than ignore them. Thanks Ard. Once you've stripped the memory nodes as represented in memblock, there's no way for the memory nodes to re-appear in one form or another after that point, right? The EFI memory map is the sole memory layout either via memblock or if it's queried directly?
On 18 March 2016 at 13:56, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Mar, at 01:31:59PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> Typically, the UEFI memory map is more restrictive, since it does not >> only describe where the memory lives, but also which parts of it the >> firmware has claimed for its own use. So if both memory nodes and the >> UEFI memory map are available, we must use the latter anyway, and so >> it makes sense to ignore the former. Alternatively, we could sanity >> check the memory nodes against the memory map, but it is simpler just >> to ignore them. >> >> However, that caused some problems in the past, since discovering the >> memory nodes occurs before the EFI entry point is invoked, and so it >> was decided that we strip the memory nodes rather than ignore them. > > Thanks Ard. > > Once you've stripped the memory nodes as represented in memblock, > there's no way for the memory nodes to re-appear in one form or > another after that point, right? The EFI memory map is the sole memory > layout either via memblock or if it's queried directly? Well, the significance of this patch in this series is that the memory nodes contain additional properties that describe the NUMA topology, which the UEFI memory map does not allow us to do. At some point, we may decide to capture this information in a different way (i.e., a separate configuration table), but for now, I think this is fine, especially since stripping nodes is a bit of a blunt tool.
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c index 9e15d57..40c9d85 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c @@ -143,6 +143,14 @@ static __init void reserve_regions(void) if (efi_enabled(EFI_DBG)) pr_info("Processing EFI memory map:\n"); + /* + * Discard memblocks discovered so far: if there are any at this + * point, they originate from memory nodes in the DT, and UEFI + * uses its own memory map instead. + */ + memblock_dump_all(); + memblock_remove(0, ULLONG_MAX); + for_each_efi_memory_desc(&memmap, md) { paddr = md->phys_addr; npages = md->num_pages; diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c index cf7b7d4..9df1560 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ efi_status_t update_fdt(efi_system_table_t *sys_table, void *orig_fdt, unsigned long map_size, unsigned long desc_size, u32 desc_ver) { - int node, prev, num_rsv; + int node, num_rsv; int status; u32 fdt_val32; u64 fdt_val64; @@ -54,28 +54,6 @@ efi_status_t update_fdt(efi_system_table_t *sys_table, void *orig_fdt, goto fdt_set_fail; /* - * Delete any memory nodes present. We must delete nodes which - * early_init_dt_scan_memory may try to use. - */ - prev = 0; - for (;;) { - const char *type; - int len; - - node = fdt_next_node(fdt, prev, NULL); - if (node < 0) - break; - - type = fdt_getprop(fdt, node, "device_type", &len); - if (type && strncmp(type, "memory", len) == 0) { - fdt_del_node(fdt, node); - continue; - } - - prev = node; - } - - /* * Delete all memory reserve map entries. When booting via UEFI, * kernel will use the UEFI memory map to find reserved regions. */