linux/arch/x86/kernel/ebda.c

110 lines
3.4 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
x86: Use memblock to replace early_res 1. replace find_e820_area with memblock_find_in_range 2. replace reserve_early with memblock_x86_reserve_range 3. replace free_early with memblock_x86_free_range. 4. NO_BOOTMEM will switch to use memblock too. 5. use _e820, _early wrap in the patch, in following patch, will replace them all 6. because memblock_x86_free_range support partial free, we can remove some special care 7. Need to make sure that memblock_find_in_range() is called after memblock_x86_fill() so adjust some calling later in setup.c::setup_arch() -- corruption_check and mptable_update -v2: Move reserve_brk() early Before fill_memblock_area, to avoid overlap between brk and memblock_find_in_range() that could happen We have more then 128 RAM entry in E820 tables, and memblock_x86_fill() could use memblock_find_in_range() to find a new place for memblock.memory.region array. and We don't need to use extend_brk() after fill_memblock_area() So move reserve_brk() early before fill_memblock_area(). -v3: Move find_smp_config early To make sure memblock_find_in_range not find wrong place, if BIOS doesn't put mptable in right place. -v4: Treat RESERVED_KERN as RAM in memblock.memory. and they are already in memblock.reserved already.. use __NOT_KEEP_MEMBLOCK to make sure memblock related code could be freed later. -v5: Generic version __memblock_find_in_range() is going from high to low, and for 32bit active_region for 32bit does include high pages need to replace the limit with memblock.default_alloc_limit, aka get_max_mapped() -v6: Use current_limit instead -v7: check with MEMBLOCK_ERROR instead of -1ULL or -1L -v8: Set memblock_can_resize early to handle EFI with more RAM entries -v9: update after kmemleak changes in mainline Suggested-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Suggested-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2010-08-25 20:39:17 +00:00
#include <linux/memblock.h>
#include <asm/setup.h>
#include <asm/bios_ebda.h>
/*
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
* This function reserves all conventional PC system BIOS related
* firmware memory areas (some of which are data, some of which
* are code), that must not be used by the kernel as available
* RAM.
*
* The BIOS places the EBDA/XBDA at the top of conventional
* memory, and usually decreases the reported amount of
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
* conventional memory (int 0x12) too.
*
* This means that as a first approximation on most systems we can
* guess the reserved BIOS area by looking at the low BIOS RAM size
* value and assume that everything above that value (up to 1MB) is
* reserved.
*
* But life in firmware country is not that simple:
*
* - This code also contains a quirk for Dell systems that neglect
* to reserve the EBDA area in the 'RAM size' value ...
*
* - The same quirk also avoids a problem with the AMD768MPX
* chipset: reserve a page before VGA to prevent PCI prefetch
* into it (errata #56). (Usually the page is reserved anyways,
* unless you have no PS/2 mouse plugged in.)
*
* - Plus paravirt systems don't have a reliable value in the
* 'BIOS RAM size' pointer we can rely on, so we must quirk
* them too.
*
* Due to those various problems this function is deliberately
* very conservative and tries to err on the side of reserving
* too much, to not risk reserving too little.
*
* Losing a small amount of memory in the bottom megabyte is
* rarely a problem, as long as we have enough memory to install
* the SMP bootup trampoline which *must* be in this area.
*
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
* Using memory that is in use by the BIOS or by some DMA device
* the BIOS didn't shut down *is* a big problem to the kernel,
* obviously.
*/
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
#define BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR 0x413
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
#define BIOS_START_MIN 0x20000U /* 128K, less than this is insane */
#define BIOS_START_MAX 0x9f000U /* 640K, absolute maximum */
void __init reserve_bios_regions(void)
{
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
unsigned int bios_start, ebda_start;
/*
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
* NOTE: In a paravirtual environment the BIOS reserved
* area is absent. We'll just have to assume that the
* paravirt case can handle memory setup correctly,
* without our help.
*/
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
if (!x86_platform.legacy.reserve_bios_regions)
return;
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
/* Get the start address of the EBDA page: */
ebda_start = get_bios_ebda();
/*
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
* Quirk: some old Dells seem to have a 4k EBDA without
* reporting so in their BIOS RAM size value, so just
* consider the memory above 640K to be off limits
* (bugzilla 2990).
*
* We detect this case by filtering for nonsensical EBDA
* addresses below 128K, where we can assume that they
* are bogus and bump it up to a fixed 640K value:
*/
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
if (ebda_start < BIOS_START_MIN)
ebda_start = BIOS_START_MAX;
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
/*
* BIOS RAM size is encoded in kilobytes, convert it
* to bytes to get a first guess at where the BIOS
* firmware area starts:
*/
bios_start = *(unsigned short *)__va(BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR);
bios_start <<= 10;
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
/*
* If bios_start is less than 128K, assume it is bogus
* and bump it up to 640K:
*/
if (bios_start < BIOS_START_MIN)
bios_start = BIOS_START_MAX;
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
/*
* Use the lower of the bios_start and ebda_start
* as the starting point, but don't allow it to
* go beyond 640K:
*/
bios_start = min(bios_start, ebda_start);
bios_start = min(bios_start, BIOS_START_MAX);
x86/boot: Reorganize and clean up the BIOS area reservation code So the reserve_ebda_region() code has accumulated a number of problems over the years that make it really difficult to read and understand: - The calculation of 'lowmem' and 'ebda_addr' is an unnecessarily interleaved mess of first lowmem, then ebda_addr, then lowmem tweaks... - 'lowmem' here means 'super low mem' - i.e. 16-bit addressable memory. In other parts of the x86 code 'lowmem' means 32-bit addressable memory... This makes it super confusing to read. - It does not help at all that we have various memory range markers, half of which are 'start of range', half of which are 'end of range' - but this crucial property is not obvious in the naming at all ... gave me a headache trying to understand all this. - Also, the 'ebda_addr' name sucks: it highlights that it's an address (which is obvious, all values here are addresses!), while it does not highlight that it's the _start_ of the EBDA region ... - 'BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES' says a lot of things, except that this is the only value that is a pointer to a value, not a memory range address! - The function name itself is a misnomer: it says 'reserve_ebda_region()' while its main purpose is to reserve all the firmware ROM typically between 640K and 1MB, while the 'EBDA' part is only a small part of that ... - Likewise, the paravirt quirk flag name 'ebda_search' is misleading as well: this too should be about whether to reserve firmware areas in the paravirt case. - In fact thinking about this as 'end of RAM' is confusing: what this function *really* wants to reserve is firmware data and code areas! Once the thinking is inverted from a mixed 'ram' and 'reserved firmware area' notion to a pure 'reserved area' notion everything becomes a lot clearer. To improve all this rewrite the whole code (without changing the logic): - Firstly invert the naming from 'lowmem end' to 'BIOS reserved area start' and propagate this concept through all the variable names and constants. BIOS_RAM_SIZE_KB_PTR // was: BIOS_LOWMEM_KILOBYTES BIOS_START_MIN // was: INSANE_CUTOFF ebda_start // was: ebda_addr bios_start // was: lowmem BIOS_START_MAX // was: LOWMEM_CAP - Then clean up the name of the function itself by renaming it to reserve_bios_regions() and renaming the ::ebda_search paravirt flag to ::reserve_bios_regions. - Fix up all the comments (fix typos), harmonize and simplify their formulation and remove comments that become unnecessary due to the much better naming all around. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2016-07-21 07:53:52 +00:00
/* Reserve all memory between bios_start and the 1MB mark: */
memblock_reserve(bios_start, 0x100000 - bios_start);
}