Bezüglich Toomas Soome's Nachricht vom 16.05.2017 18:20 (localtime):
> 
>> On 16. mai 2017, at 19:13, Harry Schmalzbauer <free...@omnilan.de> wrote:
>>
>> Bezüglich Toomas Soome's Nachricht vom 16.05.2017 18:00 (localtime):
>>>
>>>> On 16. mai 2017, at 18:45, Harry Schmalzbauer <free...@omnilan.de
>>>> <mailto:free...@omnilan.de>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bezüglich Harry Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 16.05.2017 17:28 (localtime):
>>>>> Bezüglich Toomas Soome's Nachricht vom 16.05.2017 16:57 (localtime):
>>>>>>> On 16. mai 2017, at 17:55, Harry Schmalzbauer <free...@omnilan.de
>>>>>>> <mailto:free...@omnilan.de>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> unfortunately I had some trouble with my preferred MFS-root setups.
>>>>>>> It seems EFI loader doesn't handle type md_image correctly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I load any md_image with loader invoked by gptboot or gptzfsboot,
>>>>>>> 'lsmod'
>>>>>>> shows "elf kernel", "elf obj module(s)" and "md_image".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using the same loader.conf, but EFI loader, the md_image-file is
>>>>>>> prompted and sems to be loaded, but not registered.  There's no
>>>>>>> md_image
>>>>>>> with 'lsmod', hence it's not astonsihing that kernel doesn't attach md0
>>>>>>> so booting fails since there's no rootfs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any help highly appreciated, hope Toomas doesn't mind beeing
>>>>>>> initially CC'd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -harry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first question is, how large is the md_image and what other
>>>>>> modules are loaded?
>>>>> Thanks for your quick response.
>>>>>
>>>>> The images are 50-500MB uncompressed (provided by gzip compressed file).
>>>>> Small ammount of elf modules, 5, each ~50kB.
>>>>
>>>> On the real HW, there's vmm and some more:
>>>> Id Refs Address             Size Name
>>>> 1   46 0xffffffff80200000   16M kernel
>>>> 2    1 0xffffffff8121d000   86K unionfs.ko
>>>> 3    1 0xffffffff81233000  3.1M zfs.ko
>>>> 4    2 0xffffffff81545000   51K opensolaris.ko
>>>> 5    7 0xffffffff81552000  279K usb.ko
>>>> 6    1 0xffffffff81598000   67K ukbd.ko
>>>> 7    1 0xffffffff815a9000   51K umass.ko
>>>> 8    1 0xffffffff815b6000   46K aesni.ko
>>>> 9    1 0xffffffff815c3000   54K uhci.ko
>>>> 10    1 0xffffffff815d1000   65K ehci.ko
>>>> 11    1 0xffffffff815e2000   15K cc_htcp.ko
>>>> 12    1 0xffffffff815e6000  3.4M vmm.ko
>>>> 13    1 0xffffffffa3a21000   12K ums.ko
>>>> 14    1 0xffffffffa3a24000  9.1K uhid.ko
>>>>
>>>> Providing md_image uncompressed doesn't change anything.
>>>>
>>>> Will deploy a /usr separated rootfs, which is only ~100MB uncompressed
>>>> and see if that changes anything.
>>>> That's all I can provide, code is far beyond my knowledge...
>>>>
>>>> -harry
>>>
>>>
>>> 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).

Thanks,

-harry
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to