Re: [PATCH 5/5] kexec: X86: Pass memory ranges via e820 table insteadof memmap= boot parameter

[HATAYAMA Daisuke]

(2013/04/13 7:17), Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 07:56 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 04/12/2013 07:31 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > I also have to admit that I don't see the difference between /dev/mem
> > > > and /dev/oldmem, as the former allows access to memory ranges outside
> > > > the ones used by the current kernel, which is what the oldmem device
> > > > seems to be intended to od.
>
> It varies from arch to arch of course.
>
> But, /dev/mem has restrictions on it, like CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM or the
> ARCH_HAS_VALID_PHYS_ADDR_RANGE.  There's a lot of stuff that depends on
> it, *and* folks have tried to fix it up so that it's not _as_ blatant of
> a way to completely screw your system.
>
> /dev/mem also tries to be nice to arches that have restrictions like:
>
> >                          /*
> >                           * On ia64 if a page has been mapped somewhere as
> >                           * uncached, then it must also be accessed uncached
> >                           * by the kernel or data corruption may occur
> >                           */
>
> I think /dev/oldmem isn't so nice and could actually cause some real
> problems if used on ia64 where the cached/uncached accesses are mixed.

This sounds like there's no such issue on x86 cache mechanism. Is it 
correct? If so, what is the difference between ia64 and x86 cache 
mechanisms?

--
Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/