linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Adjust shrink_zone

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200206093530.GO8965@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:35:30 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com,
        mhocko@...e.com, osalvador@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Adjust shrink_zone_span() to keep the old
 logic

On 02/06/20 at 09:50am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.02.20 06:39, Baoquan He wrote:
> > In commit 950b68d9178b ("mm/memory_hotplug: don't check for "all holes"
> > in shrink_zone_span()"), the zone->zone_start_pfn/->spanned_pages
> > resetting is moved into the if()/else if() branches, if the zone becomes
> > empty. However the 2nd resetting code block may cause misunderstanding.
> > 
> > So take the resetting codes out of the conditional checking and handling
> > branches just as the old code does, the find_smallest_section_pfn()and
> > find_biggest_section_pfn() searching have done the the same thing as
> > the old for loop did, the logic is kept the same as the old code. This
> > can remove the possible confusion.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/memory_hotplug.c | 14 ++++++--------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > index 089b6c826a9e..475d0d68a32c 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > @@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ static unsigned long find_biggest_section_pfn(int nid, struct zone *zone,
> >  static void shrink_zone_span(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn,
> >  			     unsigned long end_pfn)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned long pfn;
> > +	unsigned long pfn = zone->zone_start_pfn;
> >  	int nid = zone_to_nid(zone);
> >  
> >  	zone_span_writelock(zone);
> > @@ -414,9 +414,6 @@ static void shrink_zone_span(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn,
> >  		if (pfn) {
> >  			zone->spanned_pages = zone_end_pfn(zone) - pfn;
> >  			zone->zone_start_pfn = pfn;
> > -		} else {
> > -			zone->zone_start_pfn = 0;
> > -			zone->spanned_pages = 0;
> >  		}
> >  	} else if (zone_end_pfn(zone) == end_pfn) {
> >  		/*
> > @@ -429,10 +426,11 @@ static void shrink_zone_span(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn,
> >  					       start_pfn);
> >  		if (pfn)
> >  			zone->spanned_pages = pfn - zone->zone_start_pfn + 1;
> > -		else {
> > -			zone->zone_start_pfn = 0;
> > -			zone->spanned_pages = 0;
> > -		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!pfn) {
> > +		zone->zone_start_pfn = 0;
> > +		zone->spanned_pages = 0;
> >  	}
> >  	zone_span_writeunlock(zone);
> >  }
> > 
> 
> So, what if your zone starts at pfn 0? Unlikely that we can actually
> offline that, but still it is more confusing than the old code IMHO.
> Then I prefer to drop the second else case as discussed instead.

Hmm, pfn is initialized as zone->zone_start_pfn, does it matter?
The impossible empty zone won't go wrong if it really happen.