[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YrAzeHbYt1mAs9ue@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:44:40 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
corbet@....net, mike.kravetz@...cle.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, duanxiongchun@...edance.com, smuchun@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: memory_hotplug: make hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap
compatible with memmap_on_memory
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 04:29:11PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > Although it works, I think PageVmemmapSelfHosted() check for the 1st pfn's
> > > vmemmap page is not always reliable. Since we reused PG_owner_priv_1
> > > as PG_vmemmap_self_hosted, the test is noly reliable for vmemmap page's
> > > vmemmap page. Other non-vmemmap page can be flagged with PG_owner_priv_1.
> > > So this check can be false-positive. Maybe the following code snippet is
> > > the solution.
> >
> > How could that happen for pages used for backing a vmemmap?
> >
>
> It cannot happen for memmap_on_memory case. Howwver, it can happen for other
> cases. E.g. the 1st pfn (of boot memory block) whose vmemmap page may be flagged
> as PG_owner_priv_1 (if PG_swapcache is set). Then, the check is false-positive.
If this can really happen, which I am not that sure tbh, maybe a way out would be
to just define a new page-type as we did in previous versions of memmap_on_memory.
In that way we would not for flags, but for its type.
But as I said, I am not entirely sure about the potential fallout of what you mention.
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists