[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b7ee49c-9bee-a905-3497-e3addd8896b8@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:39:19 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/shuffle: don't move pages between zones and
don't read garbage memmaps
> Hmm.. I thought this is the behavior for early section, while it looks current
> code doesn't work like this:
>
> if (section_is_early && memmap)
> free_map_bootmem(memmap);
> else
> depopulate_section_memmap(pfn, nr_pages, altmap);
>
> section_is_early is always "true" for early section, while memmap is not-NULL
> only when sub-section map is empty.
>
> If my understanding is correct, when we remove a sub-section in early section,
> the code would call depopulate_section_memmap(), which in turn free related
> memmap. By removing the memmap, the return value from pfn_to_online_page() is
> not a valid one.
I think you're right, and pfn_valid() would also return true, as it is
an early section. This looks broken.
>
> Maybe we want to write the code like this:
>
> if (section_is_early)
> if (memmap)
> free_map_bootmem(memmap);
> else
> depopulate_section_memmap(pfn, nr_pages, altmap);
>
I guess that should be the way to go
@Dan, I think what Wei proposes here is correct, right? Or how does it
work in the VMEMMAP case with early sections?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists