From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Thu Jun 29 08:24:33 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611BCD968FF for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 08:24:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from mx0.gentlemail.de (mx0.gentlemail.de [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800::a130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 097AF7ADF2 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 08:24:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from mh0.gentlemail.de (ezra.dcm1.omnilan.net [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800::a135]) by mx0.gentlemail.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5T8OTmT023676; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:24:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from titan.inop.mo1.omnilan.net (s1.omnilan.de [217.91.127.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mh0.gentlemail.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3AC9FF1; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:24:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5954B93C.8060101@omnilan.de> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:24:28 +0200 From: Harry Schmalzbauer Organization: OmniLAN User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; de-DE; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100906 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Toomas Soome CC: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EFI loader doesn't handle md_preload (md_image) correct? References: <591B12C6.4040301@omnilan.de> <591B1A8B.6070803@omnilan.de> <591B1EA4.600@omnilan.de> <591B2523.6040101@omnilan.de> <7CF3AC8F-A778-40AE-B457-9B96AE5B4719@me.com> <591B284B.6070204@omnilan.de> In-Reply-To: <591B284B.6070204@omnilan.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mx0.gentlemail.de [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800::a130]); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:24:29 +0200 (CEST) X-Milter: Spamilter (Reciever: mx0.gentlemail.de; Sender-ip: ; Sender-helo: mh0.gentlemail.de; ) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 08:24:33 -0000 Bezüglich Harry Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 16.05.2017 18:26 (localtime): > B … >>>> The issue is, that current UEFI implementation is using 64MB staging >>>> memory for loading the kernel and modules and files. When the boot is >>>> called, the relocation code will put the bits from staging area into the >>>> final places. The BIOS version does not need such staging area, and that >>>> will explain the difference. >>>> >>>> I actually have different implementation to address the same problem, >>>> but thats for illumos case, and will need some work to make it usable >>>> for freebsd; the idea is actually simple - allocate staging area per >>>> loaded file and relocate the bits into the place by component, not as >>>> continuous large chunk (this would also allow to avoid the mines like >>>> planted by hyperv;), but right now there is no very quick real solution >>>> other than just build efi loader with larger staging size. >>> Ic, thanks for the explanation. >>> While not aware about the purpose of the staging area nor the >>> consequences of enlarging it, do you think it's feasable increasing it >>> to 768Mib? >>> >>> At least now I have an idea baout the issue and an explanation why >>> reducing md_imgae to 100MB hasn't helped – still more than 64... >>> >>> Any quick hint where to define the staging area size highly appreciated, >>> fi there are no hard objections against a 768MB size. >>> >>> -harry >> The problem is that before UEFI Boot Services are not switched off, the memory is managed (and owned) by the firmware, > Hmm, I've been expecting something like that (owend by firmware) ;-) > > So I'll stay with CSM for now, and will happily be an early adopter if > you need someone to try anything (-stable mergable). Toomas, thanks for your help so far! I'm just curious if there's news on this. Was there a decision made whether kernel should be utilized to relocate the MD image modules or the loader should be extended to handle (x-)large staging areas? I'd like to switch back to UEFI booting for various reasons (most priority has consistency), but can't since it breaks md-rootfs with that machine (the other run ESXi still). If there's anything to test, please let me know. Thanks, -harry