[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51F9419F.6070306@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:55:59 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: remove unnecessary BUG_ON in __offline_pages()
On 07/29/2013 11:49 PM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> I think we can remove "BUG_ON(start_pfn >= end_pfn)" in __offline_pages(),
> because in memory_block_action() "nr_pages = PAGES_PER_SECTION * sections_per_block"
> is always greater than 0.
...
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> @@ -1472,7 +1472,6 @@ static int __ref __offline_pages(unsigned long start_pfn,
> struct zone *zone;
> struct memory_notify arg;
>
> - BUG_ON(start_pfn >= end_pfn);
> /* at least, alignment against pageblock is necessary */
> if (!IS_ALIGNED(start_pfn, pageblock_nr_pages))
> return -EINVAL;
I think you're saying that you don't see a way to hit this BUG_ON() in
practice. That does appear to be true, unless sections_per_block ended
up 0 or negative. The odds of getting in to this code if
'sections_per_block' was bogus are pretty small.
Or, is this a theoretical thing that folks might run in to when adding
new features or developing? It's in a cold path and the cost of the
check is miniscule. The original author (cc'd) also saw a need to put
this in probably because he actually ran in to this.
In any case, it looks fairly safe to me:
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists