Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755725Ab0GXM05 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:26:57 -0400 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:56274 "EHLO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755435Ab0GXM0z (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:26:55 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: MgYynyrs+dkSQzW0pcXfl2nBLb2qshLe3JDZ9FUAFmM6 1279974414 Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:26:52 -0300 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Jack Steiner , mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] - Mapping ACPI tables as CACHED Message-ID: <20100724122652.GE7868@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <20100722152220.GA18290@sgi.com> <20100724001449.GA9618@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20100724004532.GA9240@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100724004532.GA9240@srcf.ucam.org> X-GPG-Fingerprint: 1024D/1CDB0FE3 5422 5C61 F6B7 06FB 7E04 3738 EE25 DE3F 1CDB 0FE3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1690 Lines: 33 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 09:14:50PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > Well, as it was raised in this thread, ACPI tables are likely to be near RAM > > regions used for IPC with the firmware or SMBIOS, and we have no idea of the > > kind of crap that could happen if we enable caching on those areas. > > > > OTOH, we *know* of systems that force us to copy the ACPI tables to regular > > RAM, otherwise, the utterly broken BIOS corrupts the ACPI tables after the > > kernel has loaded. > > > > Couldn't we simply always copy all tables to regular RAM and mark THAT as > > cacheable (since there will be no IPC regions in it)? For the tables that > > are only used once, we can free the RAM later. > > I think this is reasonable. There's an argument that we shouldn't cache > operation regions that may be sitting next to the ACPI tables, but I > can't see any problems being caused by copying the tables to RAM. Yes. And well-engineered platforms that are known to be safe (such as UV) could just opt-out of that and mark the ACPI tables directly as cachable if they want, if the penalty for an unecessary copy-to-RAM [on these systems] is high enough to merit it. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/