[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181214101651.GE5624@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:19:59 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Zaslonko Mikhail <zaslonko@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Mikhail Zaslonko <zaslonko@...ux.ibm.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm, memory_hotplug: Initialize struct pages for
the full memory section
[Your From address seems to have a typo (linux.bm.com) - fixed]
On Fri 14-12-18 10:33:55, Zaslonko Mikhail wrote:
[...]
> Yes, it might still trigger PF_POISONED_CHECK if the first page
> of the pageblock is left uninitialized (poisoned).
> But in order to cover these exceptional cases we would need to
> adjust memory_hotplug sysfs handler functions with similar
> checks (as in the for loop of memmap_init_zone()). And I guess
> that is what we were trying to avoid (adding special cases to
> memory_hotplug paths).
is_mem_section_removable should test pfn_valid_within at least.
But that would require some care because next_active_pageblock expects
aligned pages. Ble, this code is just horrible. I would just remove it
altogether. I strongly suspect that nobody is using it for anything
reasonable anyway. The only reliable way to check whether a block is
removable is to remove it. Everything else is just racy.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists