linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] mm: refactor initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout

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: <1523f1a6-41be-1fc7-08b9-b777a5b4ef24@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:16:28 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Łukasz Majczak <lma@...ihalf.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        "Sarvela, Tomi P" <tomi.p.sarvela@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] mm: refactor initialization of struct page for
 holes in memory layout

On 12.02.21 11:11, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 12-02-21 10:56:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 12.02.21 10:55, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 08.02.21 12:08, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> [...]
>>>> @@ -6519,8 +6581,19 @@ void __init get_pfn_range_for_nid(unsigned int nid,
>>>>     		*end_pfn = max(*end_pfn, this_end_pfn);
>>>>     	}
>>>> -	if (*start_pfn == -1UL)
>>>> +	if (*start_pfn == -1UL) {
>>>>     		*start_pfn = 0;
>>>> +		return;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Sections in the memory map may not match actual populated
>>>> +	 * memory, extend the node span to cover the entire section.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	*start_pfn = round_down(*start_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
>>>> +	*end_pfn = round_up(*end_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
>>>
>>> Does that mean that we might create overlapping zones when one node
>>
>> s/overlapping zones/overlapping nodes/
> 
> I didn't get to review the patch yet. Just wanted to note that we can
> interleave nodes/zone. Or what kind of concern do you have in mind?

I know that we can have it after boot, when hotplugging memory. How 
about during boot?

For example, which node will a PFN then actually be assigned to?

I was just wondering if this might result in issues - if that can 
already happen, then it's just fine I guess.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb