From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-x242.google.com (mail-vk0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17E8081D17 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:27:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk0-x242.google.com with SMTP id l126so6853747vkh.0 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:27:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zseWhO/+WqAGGNnBlcQ0VkjwhJlW1JMIH6QJ+VGPwgk=; b=KqZRYavZ5u1B//pZFaS9We3W2Ld5qeCQhNiVdEfFvBfWmTgvW5Kkh7HWzAvqAUHF9C PORAtWYs6M0WCo7J5MkUjlm2tCEmvhRmexEw3X3lKXGAfZA2EREh6NmFpAQN5xAWc1sr VzaZ44xR+BFgT7GpQTOTLH/FA6hU7E7/xmI7dv2bFZiAWe6WxMqg84kcJllVLDlq74oO 5tgB7aWiYx7Q1IUcIJs8TjN6hdu3KtoQ7U+dkSOOZw9FqXcIbVAH19RUjL2Rpdb/SvXH MZE2ZJ6G41caga4iiovHXd94/O8sKLYNppZk+A0TUnRi6fVHxc0et2JUOFSYq2oRUIxs JyNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zseWhO/+WqAGGNnBlcQ0VkjwhJlW1JMIH6QJ+VGPwgk=; b=JS85sroFgMSUKU2cgwVDTidkEwYWOrtP6E5d1DfH+Az7lWMST2347O0UlGwciKwh2q pZd+jaV5F/Xoheci1dedUWEJfIav2pBA7fWXTx3MaEq56xE4+wXigFwMuIlG62aLokNW Gx+TCS5JBSCxxXPiBUQ0HpXGqDnJnPshqrLDVc77euQiihAna5qLvo2/20JjLMBeuxXz n8qz2Jk/BoPxzxfiSKx9RiexQ/Q7CLJMClqZeDApytsUYHWdQ0tOrJnSGNl3bAFw6psn PZ0Ctq4/rZNxOZXtdSpnGAIZj4H+vcPkGC1+I29472U8Q8ICn0TCfLs1chPNn886q4QR tmTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03/uEb+oTfHmdQKGKljOHB70AUUez72ZgQPsjZRgnCJLoFEE8ZdhPQjYbDaUXSyYI4ppwoFrcTB8FKFZA== X-Received: by 10.176.80.101 with SMTP id z34mr407659uaz.140.1481779621079; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:27:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.34.2 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:27:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14D6A5625@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14D6A55EE@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14D6A5625@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Michael Zimmermann Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 06:27:00 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Gao, Liming" Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , "Zeng, Star" , "Tian, Feng" Subject: Re: correct way to reserve memory from PrePi? X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 05:27:02 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I've submitted the issue to bugzilla: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=295 Thanks Michael On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Gao, Liming wrote: > Michael: > I agree this is an issue that DxeCore doesn't consider the allocated memory range when it allocates the first memory range. Could you submit it in bugzilla with the detail usage model? Then, we can continue to investgate how to resolve it. > > Thanks > Liming >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Zimmermann [mailto:sigmaepsilon92@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:02 PM >> To: Gao, Liming >> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org >> ; Zeng, Star ; Tian, Feng >> >> Subject: Re: [edk2] correct way to reserve memory from PrePi? >> >> I do not want to allocate the full memory range, just small parts of >> it. I have one or two ranges(depending on how the system config >> reports it) for all ram. e.g a 2gb device usually uses either >> 0x0000000-0x80000000 or 0x00000000-0x40000000 and >> 0x40000000-0x40000000. >> >> So I digged even further and it looks like upon boot, the highest >> available memory resource descriptor is selected and allocated for the >> DxeCore. >> So if I have one memory resource only, the whole DRAM will be >> allocated by/for DxeCore. Is that really the intended behavior? >> Because this way I'm unable to reserve any RAM from the highest >> resource descriptor. The reason why it works when I have split the >> DRAM in two descriptors is that DxeCore will only allocate the upper >> half and I'm usually trying to reserve a few low memory ranges - which >> isn't always the case. >> >> Thanks >> Michael >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Gao, Liming wrote: >> > Michael: >> > I understand your usage that BuildResourceDescriptorHob adds system >> memory range, BuildMemoryAllocationHob allocate the full memory range as >> reserved memory. Then, you expect they can be shown in EFI memory map. >> Right? >> > >> > BuildResourceDescriptorHob() with (start,size) 0x80000000,0x80000000, >> then BuildMemoryAllocationHob() with (start,size) 0x80000000,0x80000000. >> It doesn't work. >> > Two BuildResourceDescriptorHob() with (start,size) >> 0x80000000,0x40000000 and 0xc0000000,0x40000000, then two >> BuildMemoryAllocationHob(). It does work. Right? >> > >> > Thanks >> > Liming >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of >> >> Michael Zimmermann >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:57 AM >> >> To: Ard Biesheuvel >> >> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org >> >> Subject: Re: [edk2] correct way to reserve memory from PrePi? >> >> >> >> I've enabled GCD debugging and apparently it doesn't accept the >> allocation: >> >> >> GCD:AllocateMemorySpace(Base=0000000090000000,Length=0000000010000 >> >> 000) >> >> GcdAllocateType = AtAddress >> >> GcdMemoryType = SystemMem >> >> Alignment = 0000000000000001 >> >> ImageHandle = FDE28F90 >> >> DeviceHandle = 0 >> >> CoreAllocateSpaceCheckEntry:982 handle=FDE28F90 >> >> CoreAllocateSpace:1130 >> >> Status = Not Found >> >> GCDMemType Range Capabilities >> >> Attributes >> >> ========== ================================= >> >> ================ >> >> ================ >> >> NonExist 0000000000000000-000000007FFFFFFF 0000000000000000 >> >> 0000000000000000 >> >> SystemMem 0000000080000000-00000000FDFFFFFF 800000000000000E >> >> 0000000000000000* >> >> NonExist 00000000FE000000-00000000FE3FFFFF 0000000000000000 >> >> 0000000000000000 >> >> SystemMem 00000000FE400000-00000000FFFE5FFF 800000000000000E >> >> 0000000000000000 >> >> SystemMem 00000000FFFE6000-00000000FFFEEFFF 800000000000000E >> >> 0000000000000000* >> >> SystemMem 00000000FFFEF000-00000000FFFFFFFF 800000000000000E >> >> 0000000000000000 >> >> >> >> >> >> It fails in this line: >> >> >> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe >> >> /Gcd/Gcd.c#L982 >> >> In this example I've used(start,size) 0x80000000,0x80000000 for the >> >> resource descriptors. >> >> If I use 0x80000000,0x40000000 and 0xc0000000,0x40000000 everything >> >> works just fine. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Michael Zimmermann >> >> wrote: >> >> > As far as I know the proper way is to create resource descriptors >> >> > using BuildResourceDescriptorHob and then allocate reserved areas >> >> > using BuildMemoryAllocationHob. This way I don't have any overlapping >> >> > descriptors - I just allocated some memory very early. >> >> > >> >> > I ran many tests and it looks like all calls to >> >> > BuildMemoryAllocationHob get ignored if my dram hobs look like this: >> >> > 0x00000000 - 0x40000000 >> >> > >> >> > If I split this range into two Hob's like this everything seems to >> >> > work just fine: >> >> > 0x00000000 - 0x20000000 >> >> > 0x20000000 - 0x20000000 >> >> > >> >> > I took a look at other platforms like Juno and they add big dram Hob's >> >> > (2GB and 6GB) too so why is this a problem? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks >> >> > Michael >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ard Biesheuvel >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> On 14 December 2016 at 10:02, Michael Zimmermann >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> I tried both BuildResourceDescriptorHob and >> BuildMemoryAllocationHob >> >> >>> but apparently they don't have any effect. >> >> >>> When I look at the output of the shell's memmap command there >> aren't >> >> >>> any reserved/unavailable pages. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Furthermore, when using AllocatePages with one of the physical >> >> >>> addresses which I've reserved it succeeds which means that it's not >> >> >>> just a problem of how the memmap command works. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think you need to ensure that they don't overlap existing resource >> >> >> descriptors: if you declare a region as reserved, you should not >> >> >> declare it as memory first >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> edk2-devel mailing list >> >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org >> >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel >> > _______________________________________________ >> > edk2-devel mailing list >> > edk2-devel@lists.01.org >> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel