[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5CA8ECA1-2360-4AAA-954F-931404EFEB2B@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 06:59:11 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/spase: never partially remove memmap for early section
> Am 26.06.2020 um 00:40 schrieb Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 07:53:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Am 25.06.2020 um 01:47 schrieb Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:44 PM Wei Yang
>>> <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>>> So, you are right that there is a mismatch here, but I think the
>>>>> comprehensive fix is to allow early sections to be partially
>>>>> depopulated/repopulated rather than have section_activate() and
>>>>> section_deacticate() special case early sections. The special casing
>>>>> is problematic in retrospect as section_deactivate() can't be
>>>>> maintained without understand special rules in section_activate().
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... This means we need to adjust pfn_valid() too, which always return true
>>>> for early sections.
>>>
>>> Right, rather than carry workarounds in 3 locations, and the bug that
>>> has resulted from then getting out of sync, just teach early section
>>> mapping to allow for the subsection populate/depopulate.
>>>
>>
>> I prefer the easy fix first - IOW what we Here here. Especially, pfn_to_online_page() will need changes as well.
>>
>
> Hi, David,
>
> Which part of pfn_to_online_page() needs to be changed? pfn_valid_within()
> would call pfn_valid() to check the pfn first. This looks enough for me.
Not for all configurations. For some (e.g., x86 iirc) it‘s just a nop.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists