[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <89f48f7a-6cbf-ac9a-cacc-cd3ca79f8c66@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:22:00 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
Sam Creasey <sammy@...my.net>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] m68k: switch to MEMBLOCK + NO_BOOTMEM
On 07/04/2018 09:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 04-07-18 09:44:14, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> [...]
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:230
>> memblock_find_in_range_node+0x11c/0x1be
>> memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotunplug may be affected
>
> This only means that hotplugable memory might contain non-movable memory
> now. But does your system even support memory hotplug. I would be really
> surprised. So I guess we just want this instead
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index cc16d70b8333..c0dde95593fd 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -228,7 +228,8 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size,
> * so we use WARN_ONCE() here to see the stack trace if
> * fail happens.
> */
> - WARN_ONCE(1, "memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotunplug may be affected\n");
> + WARN_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE),
> + "memblock: bottom-up allocvation failed, memory hotunplug may be affected\n");
^ allocation ^ hotremove
Makes sense, though.
> }
>
> return __memblock_find_range_top_down(start, end, size, align, nid,
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists