[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ybn1aSo/pMq2tMPm@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:02:17 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@...iatek.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, rppt@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux@...linux.org.uk, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
tony@...mide.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
yj.chiang@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/5] memblock, arm: fixes for freeing of the memory
map
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:07:40AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 04:57:05PM +0800, Mark-PK Tsai wrote:
> > When linux memory is not aligned with page block size and have hole in zone,
> > the 5.4-lts arm kernel might crash in move_freepages() as Kefen Wang reported in [1].
> > Backport the upstream fix commits by Mike Rapoport [2] to 5.4 can fix this issue.
> >
> > And free_unused_memmap() of arm and arm64 are moved to generic mm/memblock in
> > the below upstream commit, so I applied the first two patches to free_unused_memmap()
> > in arch/arm/mm/init.c.
> >
> > (4f5b0c178996 arm, arm64: move free_unused_memmap() to generic mm)
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2a1592ad-bc9d-4664-fd19-f7448a37edc0@huawei.com/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210630071211.21011-1-rppt@kernel.org/#t
> >
> > Mike Rapoport (5):
> > memblock: free_unused_memmap: use pageblock units instead of MAX_ORDER
> > memblock: align freed memory map on pageblock boundaries with
> > SPARSEMEM
> > memblock: ensure there is no overflow in memblock_overlaps_region()
> > arm: extend pfn_valid to take into account freed memory map alignment
> > arm: ioremap: don't abuse pfn_valid() to check if pfn is in RAM
> >
> > arch/arm/mm/init.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> > arch/arm/mm/ioremap.c | 4 +++-
> > mm/memblock.c | 3 ++-
> > 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.18.0
> >
>
> These look like they also are required in 5.10.y as well, right? Please
> also provide a backported series for that tree, we can not have users
> moving to a newer kernel version and having regressions.
>
> I can't take this series until then, sorry.
Ah, now I see your 5.10 series, thanks. I'll go queue both of these
series up now, thanks for the backports.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists