[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210201141222.GH242749@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:12:22 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: fix initialization of struct page for holes
in memory layout
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 05:39:58PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 02/01/21 at 10:14am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 11.01.21 20:40, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > +
> > > +static void __init init_unavailable_mem(void)
> > > +{
> > > + int zone;
> > > +
> > > + for (zone = 0; zone < ZONE_MOVABLE; zone++)
> > > + init_zone_unavailable_mem(zone);
> >
> > Why < ZONE_MOVABLE?
> >
> > I remember we can have memory holes inside the movable zone when messing
> > with "movablecore" cmdline parameter.
>
> Maybe because we haven't initialized MOABLE zone info at this time.
We already have zone_movable_pfn initialized at this point.
So if there is a possibility for holes in the movable zone, we should take
care of it.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists