allocator_v4: Introduce RESOURCE_ALLOCATION_TOP_DOWN

Add option to resource allocator v4 that restores the top-down
allocation approach at the domain level.

This makes it easier to handle 64-bit resources natively. With
the top-down approach, resources that can be placed either above
or below 4G would be placed above, to save precious space below
the 4G boundary.

Change-Id: Iaf463d3e6b37d52e46761d8e210034fded58a8a4
Signed-off-by: Nico Huber <nico.h@gmx.de>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/41957
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Tim Wawrzynczak <twawrzynczak@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Lean Sheng Tan <sheng.tan@9elements.com>
Reviewed-by: Subrata Banik <subratabanik@google.com>
This commit is contained in:
Nico Huber
2020-05-25 00:03:14 +02:00
committed by Martin L Roth
parent 38688519cf
commit 526c64249a
5 changed files with 72 additions and 34 deletions

View File

@ -457,8 +457,9 @@ static void test_memrange_holes(void **state)
}
/*
* This test verifies memranges_steal() function. Simple check is done by attempt so steal some
* memory from region with READONLY_TAG.
* This test verifies memranges_steal() function. Simple check is done by attempt
* to steal some memory from the top of region with CACHEABLE_TAG and some from
* the bottom of region with READONLY_TAG.
*
* Example memory ranges (res_mock1) for test_memrange_steal.
* Space marked with (/) is stolen during the test.
@ -466,8 +467,8 @@ static void test_memrange_holes(void **state)
* +--------CACHEABLE_TAG--------+ <-0xE000
* | |
* | |
* | |
* +-----------------------------+ <-0x100000
* |/////////////////////////////| <-stolen_base
* +-----------------------------+ <-0x100000 <-stolen_base + 0x4000
*
*
*
@ -501,13 +502,27 @@ static void test_memrange_steal(void **state)
status = memranges_steal(&test_memrange,
res_mock[RESERVED_TAG].base + res_mock[RESERVED_TAG].size,
stolen_range_size, 12, READONLY_TAG, &stolen);
stolen_range_size, 12, CACHEABLE_TAG, &stolen, true);
assert_true(status);
assert_in_range(stolen, res_mock[CACHEABLE_TAG].base,
res_mock[CACHEABLE_TAG].base + res_mock[CACHEABLE_TAG].size);
status = memranges_steal(&test_memrange,
res_mock[RESERVED_TAG].base + res_mock[RESERVED_TAG].size,
stolen_range_size, 12, READONLY_TAG, &stolen, false);
assert_true(status);
assert_in_range(stolen, res_mock[READONLY_TAG].base,
res_mock[READONLY_TAG].base + res_mock[READONLY_TAG].size);
memranges_each_entry(ptr, &test_memrange)
{
if (range_entry_tag(ptr) == CACHEABLE_TAG) {
assert_int_equal(range_entry_end(ptr),
ALIGN_DOWN(ALIGN_UP(res_mock[CACHEABLE_TAG].base
+ res_mock[CACHEABLE_TAG].size,
MEMRANGE_ALIGN)
- stolen_range_size,
MEMRANGE_ALIGN));
}
if (range_entry_tag(ptr) == READONLY_TAG) {
assert_int_equal(range_entry_base(ptr),
ALIGN_DOWN(res_mock[READONLY_TAG].base, MEMRANGE_ALIGN)
@ -518,20 +533,23 @@ static void test_memrange_steal(void **state)
assert_int_equal(count, 3);
count = 0;
/* Check if inserting range in previously stolen area will merge it. */
/* Check if inserting ranges in previously stolen areas will merge them. */
memranges_insert(&test_memrange,
res_mock[CACHEABLE_TAG].base + res_mock[CACHEABLE_TAG].size
- stolen_range_size - 0x12,
stolen_range_size, CACHEABLE_TAG);
memranges_insert(&test_memrange, res_mock[READONLY_TAG].base + 0xCC, stolen_range_size,
READONLY_TAG);
memranges_each_entry(ptr, &test_memrange)
{
if (range_entry_tag(ptr) == READONLY_TAG) {
assert_int_equal(
range_entry_base(ptr),
ALIGN_DOWN(res_mock[READONLY_TAG].base, MEMRANGE_ALIGN));
assert_int_equal(
range_entry_end(ptr),
ALIGN_UP(res_mock[READONLY_TAG].base + res_mock[READONLY_TAG].size,
MEMRANGE_ALIGN));
}
const unsigned long tag = range_entry_tag(ptr);
assert_true(tag == CACHEABLE_TAG || tag == READONLY_TAG || tag == RESERVED_TAG);
assert_int_equal(
range_entry_base(ptr),
ALIGN_DOWN(res_mock[tag].base, MEMRANGE_ALIGN));
assert_int_equal(
range_entry_end(ptr),
ALIGN_UP(res_mock[tag].base + res_mock[tag].size, MEMRANGE_ALIGN));
count++;
}
assert_int_equal(count, 3);