[v8,00/12] EFI Specific Purpose Memory Support
mbox series

Message ID 157309097008.1579826.12818463304589384434.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com
Headers show
Series
  • EFI Specific Purpose Memory Support
Related show

Message

Dan Williams Nov. 7, 2019, 1:42 a.m. UTC
Changes since v7:
- This is mostly a resend to get it refreshed in Ingo's inbox for v5.5
  consideration. It picks up a Reviewed-by on patch4 from Ard, has a
  minor cosmetic rebase on v5.4-rc6 with no other changes, it merges
  cleanly with tip/master, and is still passing the test case described in
  the final patch, but development is otherwise idle over the past 3
  weeks.

[1]: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/157118756627.2063440.9878062995925617180.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com/

---
Merge notes:

Hi Ingo,

This is ready to go as far as I'm concerned. Please consider merging, or
acking for Rafael to take, or of course naking if something looks off.
Rafael had threatened to start taking the standalone ACPI bits through
his tree, but I have yet to any movement on that in his 'linux-next' or
'bleeding-edge' tree.

---

The EFI 2.8 Specification [2] introduces the EFI_MEMORY_SP ("specific
purpose") memory attribute. This attribute bit replaces the deprecated
ACPI HMAT "reservation hint" that was introduced in ACPI 6.2 and removed
in ACPI 6.3.

Given the increasing diversity of memory types that might be advertised
to the operating system, there is a need for platform firmware to hint
which memory ranges are free for the OS to use as general purpose memory
and which ranges are intended for application specific usage. For
example, an application with prior knowledge of the platform may expect
to be able to exclusively allocate a precious / limited pool of high
bandwidth memory. Alternatively, for the general purpose case, the
operating system may want to make the memory available on a best effort
basis as a unique numa-node with performance properties by the new
CONFIG_HMEM_REPORTING [3] facility.

In support of optionally allowing either application-exclusive and
core-kernel-mm managed access to differentiated memory, claim
EFI_MEMORY_SP ranges for exposure as "soft reserved" and assigned to a
device-dax instance by default. Such instances can be directly owned /
mapped by a platform-topology-aware application. Alternatively, with the
new kmem facility [4], the administrator has the option to instead
designate that those memory ranges be hot-added to the core-kernel-mm as
a unique memory numa-node. In short, allow for the decision about what
software agent manages soft-reserved memory to be made at runtime.

The patches build on the new HMAT+HMEM_REPORTING facilities merged
for v5.2-rc1. The implementation is tested with qemu emulation of HMAT
[5] plus the efi_fake_mem facility for applying the EFI_MEMORY_SP
attribute. Specific details on reproducing the test configuration are in
patch 12.

[2]: https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Spec_2_8_final.pdf
[3]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e1cf33aafb84
[4]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c221c0b0308f
[5]: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1096737/

---

Dan Williams (12):
      acpi/numa: Establish a new drivers/acpi/numa/ directory
      efi: Enumerate EFI_MEMORY_SP
      x86/efi: Push EFI_MEMMAP check into leaf routines
      efi: Common enable/disable infrastructure for EFI soft reservation
      x86/efi: EFI soft reservation to E820 enumeration
      arm/efi: EFI soft reservation to memblock
      x86/efi: Add efi_fake_mem support for EFI_MEMORY_SP
      lib: Uplevel the pmem "region" ida to a global allocator
      dax: Fix alloc_dax_region() compile warning
      device-dax: Add a driver for "hmem" devices
      acpi/numa/hmat: Register HMAT at device_initcall level
      acpi/numa/hmat: Register "soft reserved" memory as an "hmem" device


 Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt |   19 +++
 arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c                             |    2 
 arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c                |    6 +
 arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c                |   46 +++++++-
 arch/x86/include/asm/e820/types.h               |    8 +
 arch/x86/include/asm/efi.h                      |   17 +++
 arch/x86/kernel/e820.c                          |   12 ++
 arch/x86/kernel/setup.c                         |   18 +--
 arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c                     |   54 ++++++++-
 arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c                  |    3 +
 drivers/acpi/Kconfig                            |    9 --
 drivers/acpi/Makefile                           |    3 -
 drivers/acpi/hmat/Makefile                      |    2 
 drivers/acpi/numa/Kconfig                       |    7 +
 drivers/acpi/numa/Makefile                      |    3 +
 drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c                        |  138 +++++++++++++++++++++--
 drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c                        |    0 
 drivers/dax/Kconfig                             |   27 ++++-
 drivers/dax/Makefile                            |    2 
 drivers/dax/bus.c                               |    2 
 drivers/dax/bus.h                               |    2 
 drivers/dax/dax-private.h                       |    2 
 drivers/dax/hmem.c                              |   56 +++++++++
 drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig                    |   21 ++++
 drivers/firmware/efi/Makefile                   |    5 +
 drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c                 |    9 ++
 drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c              |   24 ++++
 drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c                      |   13 ++
 drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c                     |    3 +
 drivers/firmware/efi/fake_mem.c                 |   26 ++--
 drivers/firmware/efi/fake_mem.h                 |   10 ++
 drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm32-stub.c       |    5 +
 drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efi-stub-helper.c  |   19 +++
 drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/random.c           |    4 +
 drivers/firmware/efi/x86_fake_mem.c             |   69 ++++++++++++
 drivers/nvdimm/Kconfig                          |    1 
 drivers/nvdimm/core.c                           |    1 
 drivers/nvdimm/nd-core.h                        |    1 
 drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c                    |   13 +-
 include/linux/efi.h                             |   16 +++
 include/linux/ioport.h                          |    1 
 include/linux/memregion.h                       |   23 ++++
 lib/Kconfig                                     |    3 +
 lib/Makefile                                    |    1 
 lib/memregion.c                                 |   18 +++
 45 files changed, 634 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 drivers/acpi/hmat/Makefile
 rename drivers/acpi/{hmat/Kconfig => numa/Kconfig} (75%)
 create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/numa/Makefile
 rename drivers/acpi/{hmat/hmat.c => numa/hmat.c} (85%)
 rename drivers/acpi/{numa.c => numa/srat.c} (100%)
 create mode 100644 drivers/dax/hmem.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/efi/fake_mem.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/efi/x86_fake_mem.c
 create mode 100644 include/linux/memregion.h
 create mode 100644 lib/memregion.c

Comments

Rafael J. Wysocki Nov. 7, 2019, 12:46 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:57 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Changes since v7:
> - This is mostly a resend to get it refreshed in Ingo's inbox for v5.5
>   consideration. It picks up a Reviewed-by on patch4 from Ard, has a
>   minor cosmetic rebase on v5.4-rc6 with no other changes, it merges
>   cleanly with tip/master, and is still passing the test case described in
>   the final patch, but development is otherwise idle over the past 3
>   weeks.
>
> [1]: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/157118756627.2063440.9878062995925617180.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com/
>
> ---
> Merge notes:
>
> Hi Ingo,
>
> This is ready to go as far as I'm concerned. Please consider merging, or
> acking for Rafael to take, or of course naking if something looks off.
> Rafael had threatened to start taking the standalone ACPI bits through
> his tree, but I have yet to any movement on that in his 'linux-next' or
> 'bleeding-edge' tree.

Indeed.

I have waited for comments on x86 bits from Thomas, but since they are
not coming, I have just decided to take patch [1/12] from this series,
which should be totally non-controversial,  as keeping it out of the
tree has become increasingly painful (material depending on it has
been piling up already for some time).

If need be, I can expose that commit in an immutable branch, so please
let me know if that's necessary.

BTW, Dan, I think that it was a mistake to make the rest of your
series depend on that patch.  The new directory could have been
created at any convenient time later.

Cheers,
Rafael
Thomas Gleixner Nov. 7, 2019, 1:48 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:57 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> I have waited for comments on x86 bits from Thomas, but since they are
> not coming, I have just decided to take patch [1/12] from this series,
> which should be totally non-controversial,  as keeping it out of the
> tree has become increasingly painful (material depending on it has
> been piling up already for some time).

Sorry for letting this slip through the cracks.

From x86 side I don't see any issues. It's mostly EFI stuff which Ard has
looked at already. So feel free to pick up the lot

Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Rafael J. Wysocki Nov. 7, 2019, 2:12 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:49 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:57 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > I have waited for comments on x86 bits from Thomas, but since they are
> > not coming, I have just decided to take patch [1/12] from this series,
> > which should be totally non-controversial,  as keeping it out of the
> > tree has become increasingly painful (material depending on it has
> > been piling up already for some time).
>
> Sorry for letting this slip through the cracks.
>
> From x86 side I don't see any issues. It's mostly EFI stuff which Ard has
> looked at already. So feel free to pick up the lot
>
> Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

I will, thank you!