[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 19/23] x86/efi: create new early memory alloca
From: |
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk |
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 19/23] x86/efi: create new early memory allocator |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:49:19 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:14PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> There is a problem with place_string() which is used as early memory
> allocator. It gets memory chunks starting from start symbol and
> going down. Sadly this does not work when Xen is loaded using multiboot2
> protocol because start lives on 1 MiB address. So, I tried to use
s/So, I tried to use/With/
> mem_lower address calculated by GRUB2. However, it works only on some
s/GRUB2. However, //
> machines. There are machines in the wild (e.g. Dell PowerEdge R820)
> which uses first ~640 KiB for boot services code or data... :-(((
>
> In case of multiboot2 protocol we need that place_string() only allocate
s/only/to only/
> memory chunk for EFI memory map. However, I think that it should be fixed
> instead of making another function used just in one case. I thought about
> two solutions.
s/I think ...two solutions/There are two solutions:/
>
> 1) We could use native EFI allocation functions (e.g. AllocatePool()
> or AllocatePages()) to get memory chunk. However, later (somewhere
> in __start_xen()) we must copy its contents to safe place or reserve
> this in e820 memory map and map it in Xen virtual address space.
> In later case we must also care about conflicts with e.g. crash
> kernel regions which could be quite difficult.
>
> 2) We may allocate memory area statically somewhere in Xen code which
> could be used as memory pool for early dynamic allocations. Looks
> quite simple. Additionally, it would not depend on EFI at all and
> could be used on legacy BIOS platforms if we need it. However, we
> must carefully choose size of this pool. We do not want increase
> Xen binary size too much and waste too much memory but also we must fit
Aren't we gziping the binary? In which you do not waste that much disk space.
> at least memory map on x86 EFI platforms. As I saw on small machine,
s/at least memory map on/on small memory/
s/As I saw on small machine/For example on/
> e.g. IBM System x3550 M2 with 8 GiB RAM, memory map may contain more
> than 200 entries. Every entry on x86-64 platform is 40 bytes in size.
s/entries. Every entry on .. is/wherein every entry is/
> So, it means that we need more than 8 KiB for EFI memory map only.
s/So, it means that we need more than/Brings it up to/
> Additionally, if we want to use this memory pool for Xen and modules
> command line storage (it would be used when xen.efi is executed as EFI
> application) then we should add, I think, about 1 KiB. In this case,
s/,I think, //
> to be on safe side, we should assume at least 64 KiB pool for early
> memory allocations, which is about 4 times of our earlier calculations.
> However, during discussion on Xen-devel Jan Beulich suggested that
> just in case we should use 1 MiB memory pool like it was in original
> place_string() implementation. So, let's use 1 MiB as it was proposed.
s/If we think that we should not/To not/
> If we think that we should not waste unallocated memory in the pool
> on running system then we can mark this region as __initdata and move
> all required data to dynamically allocated places somewhere in
> __start_xen().
>
> Now solution #2 is implemented but maybe we should consider #1 one day.
s/Now ../This patch implements #2 solution./
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <address@hidden>
Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <address@hidden> with the
adjustments mentioned.
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/efi/efi-boot.h | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 3 +--
> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/efi/efi-boot.h b/xen/arch/x86/efi/efi-boot.h
> index 2dd69f6..3d25c48 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/efi/efi-boot.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/efi/efi-boot.h
> @@ -103,9 +103,36 @@ static void __init relocate_trampoline(unsigned long
> phys)
> *(u16 *)(*trampoline_ptr + (long)trampoline_ptr) = phys >> 4;
> }
>
> +#define EBMALLOC_SIZE MB(1)
> +
> +static char __initdata ebmalloc_mem[EBMALLOC_SIZE];
> +static char __initdata *ebmalloc_free = NULL;
> +
> +/* EFI boot allocator. */
> +static void __init *ebmalloc(size_t size)
> +{
> + void *ptr;
> +
> + /*
> + * Init ebmalloc_free on runtime. Static initialization
> + * will not work because it puts virtual address there.
And why is that bad?
> + */
> + if ( ebmalloc_free == NULL )
> + ebmalloc_free = ebmalloc_mem;
> +
> + ptr = ebmalloc_free;
> +
> + ebmalloc_free += size;
> +
> + if ( ebmalloc_free - ebmalloc_mem > sizeof(ebmalloc_mem) )
> + blexit(L"Out of static memory\r\n");
> +
> + return ptr;
> +}
> +
> static void __init place_string(u32 *addr, const char *s)
> {
> - static char *__initdata alloc = start;
> + char *alloc = NULL;
>
> if ( s && *s )
> {
> @@ -113,7 +140,7 @@ static void __init place_string(u32 *addr, const char *s)
> const char *old = (char *)(long)*addr;
> size_t len2 = *addr ? strlen(old) + 1 : 0;
>
> - alloc -= len1 + len2;
> + alloc = ebmalloc(len1 + len2);
> /*
> * Insert new string before already existing one. This is needed
> * for options passed on the command line to override options from
> @@ -196,12 +223,7 @@ static void __init
> efi_arch_process_memory_map(EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE *SystemTable,
>
> static void *__init efi_arch_allocate_mmap_buffer(UINTN map_size)
> {
> - place_string(&mbi.mem_upper, NULL);
> - mbi.mem_upper -= map_size;
> - mbi.mem_upper &= -__alignof__(EFI_MEMORY_DESCRIPTOR);
> - if ( mbi.mem_upper < xen_phys_start )
> - return NULL;
> - return (void *)(long)mbi.mem_upper;
> + return ebmalloc(map_size);
> }
>
> static void __init efi_arch_pre_exit_boot(void)
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> index bce708c..a59fc4e 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> @@ -994,8 +994,7 @@ void __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p)
>
> if ( !xen_phys_start )
> panic("Not enough memory to relocate Xen.");
> - reserve_e820_ram(&boot_e820, efi_enabled(EFI_PLATFORM) ? mbi->mem_upper
> : __pa(&_start),
> - __pa(&_end));
> + reserve_e820_ram(&boot_e820, __pa(&_start), __pa(&_end));
>
> /* Late kexec reservation (dynamic start address). */
> kexec_reserve_area(&boot_e820);
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 19/23] x86/efi: create new early memory allocator,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <=