Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:28:14 -0800 | From | Yinghai Lu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix e820 end address with EFI |
| |
Huang Ying wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 05:38 +0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> Huang Ying wrote: >>> On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 10:51 +0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote: >>>>>> so 64bit could use ioremap_cache() too? >>>>>> we may keep 32bit and 64bit a bit consistent. >>>>> If we use ioremap_cache(), kexec runtime service will not work in kexec >>>>> situation, which needs EFI runtime memory area to be mapped at exact >>>>> same location across kexec. I think we should support kexec if possible. >>>> sure. >>>> >>>> please don't touch max_low_pfn_mapped, because some range may not >>>> directly mapped under those efi run-time code >>> Find an issue to use init_memory_mapping() here. >>> >>> If the memory range to be mapped is less than 2M, the last mapped >>> address may be next 2M aligned position, this may lead mapping >>> overlapping between memory range. Such as: >>> >>> 0x3f388000 - 0x3f488000: real mapped 0x3f388000 - 0x3f600000 >>> 0x3f590000 - 0x3f5bb000: real mapped 0x3f590000 - 0x3f600000 >>> >>> The problem is that the memory range 0x3f400000 - 0x3f590000 is left not >>> mapped! >> what is max_low_pfn_mapped before that? > > I don't know exactly what you mean. Can you elaborate a little? > > 0 ~ max_low_pfn_mapped ~ max_pfn_mapped can be mapped with > init_memory_mapping() properly. > > The issue of above example is that 0x3f400000 ~ 0x3f488000 is a > sub-range of 0x3f388000 ~ 0x3f488000, which should be mapped but is left > not mapped. what is max_low_pfn_mapped?
what is init_memory_mapping() printout?
YH
| |