On 04.06.20 17:27, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.06.20 17:06, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 01:32:40PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Just a thought: If memory hotplug is applicable as well, you might
>>> either want to always assume data->enable_4GB, or handle memory hotplug
>>> events from the memory notifier, when new memory gets onlined (not sure
>>> how tricky that is).
>> We probably want a highest_pfn_possible() or similar API instead of
>> having drivers poking into random VM internals.
> Well, memory notifiers are a reasonable api used accross the kernel to
> get notified when new memory is onlined to the buddy that could be used
> for allocations.
> highest_pfn_possible() would have to default to something linked to
> MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS whenever memory hotplug is configured, I am not sure
> how helpful that is (IOW, you can just default to enable_4GB=true in
> that case instead in most cases).

Correction: At least on x86-64 we have max_possible_pfn, which will
consult the ACPI SRAT table to figure out the maximum possible PFN.
(Without SRAT, max_possible_pfn will point at the end of initial boot
memory and not consider hotplug memory - something that e.g., newer QEMU
versions work around by creating SRAT tables if memory hotplug might be
possible, even if there is no actual NUMA configuration).

pci-swiotlb.c similarly relies on that to figure out if there are any
!DMA addresses to handle.


David / dhildenb

iommu mailing list

Reply via email to