Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:24:28 +0200 From: Harry Schmalzbauer <freebsd@omnilan.de> To: Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EFI loader doesn't handle md_preload (md_image) correct? Message-ID: <5954B93C.8060101@omnilan.de> In-Reply-To: <591B284B.6070204@omnilan.de> References: <591B12C6.4040301@omnilan.de> <DD0FE9CA-48C9-4A77-81FD-8CA139D95543@me.com> <591B1A8B.6070803@omnilan.de> <591B1EA4.600@omnilan.de> <FEF74507-4A04-49DD-A763-6733E18CCE66@me.com> <591B2523.6040101@omnilan.de> <7CF3AC8F-A778-40AE-B457-9B96AE5B4719@me.com> <591B284B.6070204@omnilan.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5954B93C.8060101>