* Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Boaz Harrosh <b...@plexistor.com> wrote:
> >> > On 02/17/2015 12:03 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:07:07PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >> >>> In any way this is a problem for the new type-12 NvDIMM memory chips
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> are circulating around. (It is estimated that there are already 100ds
> >> >>> of
> >> >>> thousands NvDIMM chips in active use)
> >> >>
> >> >> Hang on. NV-DIMM chips don't know anyhing about E820
> >> >> tables. They don't have anything in them that says "I
> >> >> am type 12!". How they are reported is up to the
> >> >> BIOS. Just because your BIOS vendor has chosen to
> >> >> report tham as type 12 doesn't mean that any other
> >> >> BIOS vedor is going to have done the same thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fortunately, the BIOS people have all got together and
> >> >> decided what they're going to do, and it's not type
> >> >> 12. Unfortunately, I think I'm bound by various
> >> >> agreements to not say what they are going to do until
> >> >> they do. But putting this temporary workaround in the
> >> >> kernel to accomodate one BIOS vendor's unreleased
> >> >> experimental code seems like entirely the wrong idea.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I had a feeling I'm entering an holy war ;-).
> >> >
> >> > I hope you are OK with my first patch. That an unknown
> >> > type need not be reported busy, and behave same as
> >> > "reserved"?
> >>
> >> No, it seems the safe thing to do is prevent the
> >> kernel from accessing any memory that it does not know
> >> the side-effects of accessing.
> >
> > Well, except when the kernel does know how to access
> > it: when an nvdimm driver knows about its own memory
> > region and knows how to handle it, right?
>
> Yes, except that "type-12" is something picked out of the
> air that may be invalidated by a future spec change.
>
> If firmware wants any driver to handle a memory range it
> can already use E820_RESERVED. The only reason a
> new-type was picked in these early implementations was
> for experiments around reserving nvdimm memory for driver
> use, but also extending it to be covered with struct page
> mappings. Outside of that there is no real driving
> reason for the new type.
But ... if a user is blessed/haunted with such firmware,
why not let new types fall back to 'reserved', which is a
reasonable default that still allows sufficiently aware
Linux drivers to work, right?
> > So is there any practical reason to mark the memory
> > resource as busy in that case, instead of just adding
> > it to the reserved list by default and allowing
> > properly informed drivers to (exclusively) request it?
>
> I'm not sure we want firmware to repeat this confusion
> going forward. Why support new memory types unless
> defined by ACPI or otherwise sufficiently described by
> E820_RESERVED?
Because it would make the kernel more functional? We should
always err on the side of allowing more functionality and
not erect roadblocks.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
