On 03/03/17 at 12:43pm, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:09:08PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > Am I right on understanding it? > > That's exactly what I mean: KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is 512M by default but > we're not hard-constrained to it - we're hard-constrained to a 1G limit > as this is the 1G which is covered by level2_kernel_pgt. > > And in thinking about this more, I know I suggested making the > KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE by default 1G in order to simplify things. > > But you're adding another KERNEL_MAPPING_SIZE which confuses things > more. And I fail to see why we absolutely need it.
OK, I am trying to make things clearer, seems I failed. I thought kernel iamge size is only allowed to be 512M at most, but can be mapped into 1G region. > > So we suggest kernel image size should be 512M but then we still will > be using a whole 1G mapping for it anyway and a whole page of PMDs at > level2_kernel_pgt. > > So why even bother? > > Just make it 1G and don't introduce anything new. It's fine to me, thing can be solved anyway. Will repost with KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE by default 1G. Thanks Baoquan
