[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191206130505.GD1399220@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:05:05 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 226/321] mm/hotplug: invalid PFNs from
pfn_to_online_page()
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:14:52PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > This is due to the commit 9f1eb38e0e11 ("mm, kmemleak: little
> > optimization while scanning") starts to use pfn_to_online_page() instead
> > of pfn_valid(). However, in the CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG=y case,
> > pfn_to_online_page() does not call memblock_is_map_memory() while
> > pfn_valid() does.
> ...
> > Fixes: 9f1eb38e0e11 ("mm, kmemleak: little optimization while scanning")
>
> Commit 9f1eb38e0e11 does not seem to be in v4.19-stable tree. Is this
> commit still neccessary/good idea?
Good catch.
Sasha, should this be reverted? How did your scripts pick this?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists