Virtualization - May 2020 - [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Introduce MHP_NO_FIRMWARE_MEMMAP

On 01.05.20 20:03, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:51 AM David Hildenbrand <david at
redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 01.05.20 19:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 01.05.20 19:39, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM David Hildenbrand <david at
redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01.05.20 18:56, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:34 AM David Hildenbrand
<david at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01.05.20 00:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:43:39 +0200 David
Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why does the firmware map support
hotplug entries?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I assume:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The firmware memmap was added primarily for
x86-64 kexec (and still, is
>>>>>>>>> mostly used on x86-64 only IIRC). There, we
had ACPI hotplug. When DIMMs
>>>>>>>>> get hotplugged on real HW, they get added
to e820. Same applies to
>>>>>>>>> memory added via HyperV balloon (unless
memory is unplugged via
>>>>>>>>> ballooning and you reboot ... the the e820
is changed as well). I assume
>>>>>>>>> we wanted to be able to reflect that, to
make kexec look like a real reboot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This worked for a while. Then came
dax/kmem. Now comes virtio-mem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I assume only Andrew can enlighten us.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @Andrew, any guidance here? Should we
really add all memory to the
>>>>>>>>> firmware memmap, even if this contradicts
with the existing
>>>>>>>>> documentation? (especially, if the actual
firmware memmap will *not*
>>>>>>>>> contain that memory after a reboot)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For some reason that patch is misattributed -
it was authored by
>>>>>>>> Shaohui Zheng <shaohui.zheng at
intel.com>, who hasn't been heard from in
>>>>>>>> a decade.  I looked through the email
discussion from that time and I'm
>>>>>>>> not seeing anything useful.  But I wasn't
able to locate Dave Hansen's
>>>>>>>> review comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay, thanks for checking. I think the
documentation from 2008 is pretty
>>>>>>> clear what has to be done here. I will add some of
these details to the
>>>>>>> patch description.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, now that I know that esp. kexec-tools already
don't consider
>>>>>>> dax/kmem memory properly (memory will not get
dumped via kdump) and
>>>>>>> won't really suffer from a name change in
/proc/iomem, I will go back to
>>>>>>> the MHP_DRIVER_MANAGED approach and
>>>>>>> 1. Don't create firmware memmap entries
>>>>>>> 2. Name the resource "System RAM (driver
managed)"
>>>>>>> 3. Flag the resource via something like
IORESOURCE_MEM_DRIVER_MANAGED.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This way, kernel users and user space can figure
out that this memory
>>>>>>> has different semantics and handle it accordingly -
I think that was
>>>>>>> what Eric was asking for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, open for suggestions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still more of a fan of this being communicated
by "System RAM"
>>>>>
>>>>> I was mentioning somewhere in this thread that "System
RAM" inside a
>>>>> hierarchy (like dax/kmem) will already be basically ignored
by
>>>>> kexec-tools. So, placing it inside a hierarchy already
makes it look
>>>>> special already.
>>>>>
>>>>> But after all, as we have to change kexec-tools either way,
we can
>>>>> directly go ahead and flag it properly as special (in case
there will
>>>>> ever be other cases where we could no longer distinguish
it).
>>>>>
>>>>>> being parented especially because that tells you
something about how
>>>>>> the memory is driver-managed and which mechanism might
be in play.
>>>>>
>>>>> The could be communicated to some degree via the resource
hierarchy.
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g.,
>>>>>
>>>>>             [root at localhost ~]# cat /proc/iomem
>>>>>             ...
>>>>>             140000000-33fffffff : Persistent Memory
>>>>>               140000000-1481fffff : namespace0.0
>>>>>               150000000-33fffffff : dax0.0
>>>>>                 150000000-33fffffff : System RAM (driver
managed)
>>>>>
>>>>> vs.
>>>>>
>>>>>            :/# cat /proc/iomem
>>>>>             [...]
>>>>>             140000000-333ffffff : virtio-mem (virtio0)
>>>>>               140000000-147ffffff : System RAM (driver
managed)
>>>>>               148000000-14fffffff : System RAM (driver
managed)
>>>>>               150000000-157ffffff : System RAM (driver
managed)
>>>>>
>>>>> Good enough for my taste.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What about adding an optional
/sys/firmware/memmap/X/parent attribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't want any firmware memmap entries for
something that is
>>>>> not part of the firmware provided memmap. In addition,
>>>>> /sys/firmware/memmap/ is still a fairly x86_64 specific
thing. Only mips
>>>>> and two arm configs enable it at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, IMHO, /sys/firmware/memmap/ is definitely not the way
to go.
>>>>
>>>> I think that's a policy decision and policy decisions do
not belong in
>>>> the kernel. Give the tooling the opportunity to decide whether
System
>>>> RAM stays that way over a kexec. The parenthetical reference
otherwise
>>>> looks out of place to me in the /proc/iomem output. What makes
it
>>>> "driver managed" is how the kernel handles it, not
how the kernel
>>>> names it.
>>>
>>> At least, virtio-mem is different. It really *has to be handled* by
the
>>> driver. This is not a policy. It's how it works.
> 
> ...but that's not necessarily how dax/kmem works.
> 
Yes, and user space could still take that memory and add it to the
firmware memmap if it really wants to. It knows that it is special. It
can figure out that it belongs to a dax device using /proc/iomem.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, and I don't see why "System RAM (driver managed)"
would hinder any
>> policy in user case to still do what it thinks is the right thing to do
>> (e.g., for dax).
>>
>> "System RAM (driver managed)" would mean: Memory is not part
of the raw
>> firmware memmap. It was detected and added by a driver. Handle with
>> care, this is special.
> 
> Oh, no, I was more reacting to your, "don't update
> /sys/firmware/memmap for the (driver managed) range" choice as being a
> policy decision. It otherwise feels to me "System RAM (driver
> managed)" adds confusion for casual users of /proc/iomem and for clued
> in tools they have the parent association to decide policy.
Not sure if I understand correctly, so bear with me :).

Adding or not adding stuff to /sys/firmware/memmap is not a policy
decision. If it's not part of the raw firmware-provided memmap, it has
nothing to do in /sys/firmware/memmap. That's what the documentation
from 2008 tells us.

Again, my point is that we don't create /sys/firmware/memmap entries for
dax/kmem and virtio-mem memory - because it's not part of the raw
firmware-provided memmap. I was not suggesting to add something like
"System RAM (driver managed)" there instead, maybe that part was
confusing.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:14 AM David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> On 01.05.20 20:03, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:51 AM David Hildenbrand <david at
redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01.05.20 19:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 01.05.20 19:39, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM David Hildenbrand
<david at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 01.05.20 18:56, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:34 AM David Hildenbrand
<david at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 01.05.20 00:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:43:39 +0200 David
Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why does the firmware map support
hotplug entries?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I assume:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The firmware memmap was added
primarily for x86-64 kexec (and still, is
> >>>>>>>>> mostly used on x86-64 only IIRC).
There, we had ACPI hotplug. When DIMMs
> >>>>>>>>> get hotplugged on real HW, they get
added to e820. Same applies to
> >>>>>>>>> memory added via HyperV balloon
(unless memory is unplugged via
> >>>>>>>>> ballooning and you reboot ... the the
e820 is changed as well). I assume
> >>>>>>>>> we wanted to be able to reflect that,
to make kexec look like a real reboot.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This worked for a while. Then came
dax/kmem. Now comes virtio-mem.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But I assume only Andrew can enlighten
us.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> @Andrew, any guidance here? Should we
really add all memory to the
> >>>>>>>>> firmware memmap, even if this
contradicts with the existing
> >>>>>>>>> documentation? (especially, if the
actual firmware memmap will *not*
> >>>>>>>>> contain that memory after a reboot)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For some reason that patch is
misattributed - it was authored by
> >>>>>>>> Shaohui Zheng <shaohui.zheng at
intel.com>, who hasn't been heard from in
> >>>>>>>> a decade.  I looked through the email
discussion from that time and I'm
> >>>>>>>> not seeing anything useful.  But I
wasn't able to locate Dave Hansen's
> >>>>>>>> review comments.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Okay, thanks for checking. I think the
documentation from 2008 is pretty
> >>>>>>> clear what has to be done here. I will add
some of these details to the
> >>>>>>> patch description.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also, now that I know that esp. kexec-tools
already don't consider
> >>>>>>> dax/kmem memory properly (memory will not get
dumped via kdump) and
> >>>>>>> won't really suffer from a name change in
/proc/iomem, I will go back to
> >>>>>>> the MHP_DRIVER_MANAGED approach and
> >>>>>>> 1. Don't create firmware memmap entries
> >>>>>>> 2. Name the resource "System RAM (driver
managed)"
> >>>>>>> 3. Flag the resource via something like
IORESOURCE_MEM_DRIVER_MANAGED.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This way, kernel users and user space can
figure out that this memory
> >>>>>>> has different semantics and handle it
accordingly - I think that was
> >>>>>>> what Eric was asking for.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course, open for suggestions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm still more of a fan of this being
communicated by "System RAM"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was mentioning somewhere in this thread that
"System RAM" inside a
> >>>>> hierarchy (like dax/kmem) will already be basically
ignored by
> >>>>> kexec-tools. So, placing it inside a hierarchy already
makes it look
> >>>>> special already.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But after all, as we have to change kexec-tools either
way, we can
> >>>>> directly go ahead and flag it properly as special (in
case there will
> >>>>> ever be other cases where we could no longer
distinguish it).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> being parented especially because that tells you
something about how
> >>>>>> the memory is driver-managed and which mechanism
might be in play.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The could be communicated to some degree via the
resource hierarchy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> E.g.,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>             [root at localhost ~]# cat /proc/iomem
> >>>>>             ...
> >>>>>             140000000-33fffffff : Persistent Memory
> >>>>>               140000000-1481fffff : namespace0.0
> >>>>>               150000000-33fffffff : dax0.0
> >>>>>                 150000000-33fffffff : System RAM
(driver managed)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> vs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>            :/# cat /proc/iomem
> >>>>>             [...]
> >>>>>             140000000-333ffffff : virtio-mem (virtio0)
> >>>>>               140000000-147ffffff : System RAM (driver
managed)
> >>>>>               148000000-14fffffff : System RAM (driver
managed)
> >>>>>               150000000-157ffffff : System RAM (driver
managed)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Good enough for my taste.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What about adding an optional
/sys/firmware/memmap/X/parent attribute.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I really don't want any firmware memmap entries
for something that is
> >>>>> not part of the firmware provided memmap. In addition,
> >>>>> /sys/firmware/memmap/ is still a fairly x86_64
specific thing. Only mips
> >>>>> and two arm configs enable it at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, IMHO, /sys/firmware/memmap/ is definitely not the
way to go.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that's a policy decision and policy decisions
do not belong in
> >>>> the kernel. Give the tooling the opportunity to decide
whether System
> >>>> RAM stays that way over a kexec. The parenthetical
reference otherwise
> >>>> looks out of place to me in the /proc/iomem output. What
makes it
> >>>> "driver managed" is how the kernel handles it,
not how the kernel
> >>>> names it.
> >>>
> >>> At least, virtio-mem is different. It really *has to be
handled* by the
> >>> driver. This is not a policy. It's how it works.
> >
> > ...but that's not necessarily how dax/kmem works.
> >
>
> Yes, and user space could still take that memory and add it to the
> firmware memmap if it really wants to. It knows that it is special. It
> can figure out that it belongs to a dax device using /proc/iomem.
>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Oh, and I don't see why "System RAM (driver
managed)" would hinder any
> >> policy in user case to still do what it thinks is the right thing
to do
> >> (e.g., for dax).
> >>
> >> "System RAM (driver managed)" would mean: Memory is not
part of the raw
> >> firmware memmap. It was detected and added by a driver. Handle
with
> >> care, this is special.
> >
> > Oh, no, I was more reacting to your, "don't update
> > /sys/firmware/memmap for the (driver managed) range" choice as
being a
> > policy decision. It otherwise feels to me "System RAM (driver
> > managed)" adds confusion for casual users of /proc/iomem and for
clued
> > in tools they have the parent association to decide policy.
>
> Not sure if I understand correctly, so bear with me :).
>
> Adding or not adding stuff to /sys/firmware/memmap is not a policy
> decision. If it's not part of the raw firmware-provided memmap, it has
> nothing to do in /sys/firmware/memmap. That's what the documentation
> from 2008 tells us.
It just occurs to me that there are valid cases for both wanting to
start over with driver managed memory with a kexec and keeping it in
the map. Consider the case of EFI Special Purpose (SP) Memory that is
marked EFI Conventional Memory with the SP attribute. In that case the
firmware memory map marked it as conventional RAM, but the kernel
optionally marks it as System RAM vs Soft Reserved. The 2008 patch
simply does not consider that case. I'm not sure strict textualism
works for coding decisions.

On 01.05.20 20:43, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:14 AM David Hildenbrand <david at
redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 01.05.20 20:03, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:51 AM David Hildenbrand <david at
redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01.05.20 19:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 01.05.20 19:39, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM David Hildenbrand
<david at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01.05.20 18:56, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:34 AM David
Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01.05.20 00:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:43:39 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why does the firmware map
support hotplug entries?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I assume:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The firmware memmap was added
primarily for x86-64 kexec (and still, is
>>>>>>>>>>> mostly used on x86-64 only IIRC).
There, we had ACPI hotplug. When DIMMs
>>>>>>>>>>> get hotplugged on real HW, they get
added to e820. Same applies to
>>>>>>>>>>> memory added via HyperV balloon
(unless memory is unplugged via
>>>>>>>>>>> ballooning and you reboot ... the
the e820 is changed as well). I assume
>>>>>>>>>>> we wanted to be able to reflect
that, to make kexec look like a real reboot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This worked for a while. Then came
dax/kmem. Now comes virtio-mem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But I assume only Andrew can
enlighten us.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> @Andrew, any guidance here? Should
we really add all memory to the
>>>>>>>>>>> firmware memmap, even if this
contradicts with the existing
>>>>>>>>>>> documentation? (especially, if the
actual firmware memmap will *not*
>>>>>>>>>>> contain that memory after a reboot)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For some reason that patch is
misattributed - it was authored by
>>>>>>>>>> Shaohui Zheng <shaohui.zheng at
intel.com>, who hasn't been heard from in
>>>>>>>>>> a decade.  I looked through the email
discussion from that time and I'm
>>>>>>>>>> not seeing anything useful.  But I
wasn't able to locate Dave Hansen's
>>>>>>>>>> review comments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Okay, thanks for checking. I think the
documentation from 2008 is pretty
>>>>>>>>> clear what has to be done here. I will add
some of these details to the
>>>>>>>>> patch description.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, now that I know that esp. kexec-tools
already don't consider
>>>>>>>>> dax/kmem memory properly (memory will not
get dumped via kdump) and
>>>>>>>>> won't really suffer from a name change
in /proc/iomem, I will go back to
>>>>>>>>> the MHP_DRIVER_MANAGED approach and
>>>>>>>>> 1. Don't create firmware memmap entries
>>>>>>>>> 2. Name the resource "System RAM
(driver managed)"
>>>>>>>>> 3. Flag the resource via something like
IORESOURCE_MEM_DRIVER_MANAGED.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This way, kernel users and user space can
figure out that this memory
>>>>>>>>> has different semantics and handle it
accordingly - I think that was
>>>>>>>>> what Eric was asking for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, open for suggestions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm still more of a fan of this being
communicated by "System RAM"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was mentioning somewhere in this thread that
"System RAM" inside a
>>>>>>> hierarchy (like dax/kmem) will already be basically
ignored by
>>>>>>> kexec-tools. So, placing it inside a hierarchy
already makes it look
>>>>>>> special already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But after all, as we have to change kexec-tools
either way, we can
>>>>>>> directly go ahead and flag it properly as special
(in case there will
>>>>>>> ever be other cases where we could no longer
distinguish it).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> being parented especially because that tells
you something about how
>>>>>>>> the memory is driver-managed and which
mechanism might be in play.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The could be communicated to some degree via the
resource hierarchy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E.g.,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             [root at localhost ~]# cat /proc/iomem
>>>>>>>             ...
>>>>>>>             140000000-33fffffff : Persistent Memory
>>>>>>>               140000000-1481fffff : namespace0.0
>>>>>>>               150000000-33fffffff : dax0.0
>>>>>>>                 150000000-33fffffff : System RAM
(driver managed)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            :/# cat /proc/iomem
>>>>>>>             [...]
>>>>>>>             140000000-333ffffff : virtio-mem
(virtio0)
>>>>>>>               140000000-147ffffff : System RAM
(driver managed)
>>>>>>>               148000000-14fffffff : System RAM
(driver managed)
>>>>>>>               150000000-157ffffff : System RAM
(driver managed)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good enough for my taste.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about adding an optional
/sys/firmware/memmap/X/parent attribute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really don't want any firmware memmap entries
for something that is
>>>>>>> not part of the firmware provided memmap. In
addition,
>>>>>>> /sys/firmware/memmap/ is still a fairly x86_64
specific thing. Only mips
>>>>>>> and two arm configs enable it at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, IMHO, /sys/firmware/memmap/ is definitely not
the way to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that's a policy decision and policy
decisions do not belong in
>>>>>> the kernel. Give the tooling the opportunity to decide
whether System
>>>>>> RAM stays that way over a kexec. The parenthetical
reference otherwise
>>>>>> looks out of place to me in the /proc/iomem output.
What makes it
>>>>>> "driver managed" is how the kernel handles
it, not how the kernel
>>>>>> names it.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least, virtio-mem is different. It really *has to be
handled* by the
>>>>> driver. This is not a policy. It's how it works.
>>>
>>> ...but that's not necessarily how dax/kmem works.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and user space could still take that memory and add it to the
>> firmware memmap if it really wants to. It knows that it is special. It
>> can figure out that it belongs to a dax device using /proc/iomem.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and I don't see why "System RAM (driver
managed)" would hinder any
>>>> policy in user case to still do what it thinks is the right
thing to do
>>>> (e.g., for dax).
>>>>
>>>> "System RAM (driver managed)" would mean: Memory is
not part of the raw
>>>> firmware memmap. It was detected and added by a driver. Handle
with
>>>> care, this is special.
>>>
>>> Oh, no, I was more reacting to your, "don't update
>>> /sys/firmware/memmap for the (driver managed) range" choice as
being a
>>> policy decision. It otherwise feels to me "System RAM (driver
>>> managed)" adds confusion for casual users of /proc/iomem and
for clued
>>> in tools they have the parent association to decide policy.
>>
>> Not sure if I understand correctly, so bear with me :).
>>
>> Adding or not adding stuff to /sys/firmware/memmap is not a policy
>> decision. If it's not part of the raw firmware-provided memmap, it
has
>> nothing to do in /sys/firmware/memmap. That's what the
documentation
>> from 2008 tells us.
> 
> It just occurs to me that there are valid cases for both wanting to
> start over with driver managed memory with a kexec and keeping it in
> the map.
Yes, there might be valid cases. My gut feeling is that in the general
case, you want to let the kexec kernel implement a policy/ let the user
in the new system decide.

But as I said, you can implement in kexec-tools whatever policy you
want. It has access to all information.
> Consider the case of EFI Special Purpose (SP) Memory that is
> marked EFI Conventional Memory with the SP attribute. In that case the
> firmware memory map marked it as conventional RAM, but the kernel
> optionally marks it as System RAM vs Soft Reserved. The 2008 patch
> simply does not consider that case. I'm not sure strict textualism
> works for coding decisions.
I am no expert on that matter (esp EFI). But looking at the users of
firmware_map_add_early(), the single user is in arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
. So the single source of /sys/firmware/memmap is (besides hotplug) e820.

"'e820_table_firmware': the original firmware version passed to us
by
the bootloader - not modified by the kernel. ... inform the user about
the firmware's notion of memory layout via /sys/firmware/memmap"
(arch/x86/kernel/e820.c)

How is the EFI Special Purpose (SP) Memory represented in e820?

/sys/firmware/memmap is really simple: just dump in e820. No policies IIUC.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb