From: Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [BUGFIX] drivers/base: fix show_mem_removable to handle missing sections
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:06:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130827160624.GA22918@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130826144959.52fd24cd2833929168ee7e35@linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 02:49:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:23:17 -0500 Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> > "cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory*/removable" crashed the system.
> >
> > The problem is that show_mem_removable() is passing a
> > bad pfn to is_mem_section_removable(), which causes
> > if (!node_online(page_to_nid(page))) to blow up.
> > Why is it passing in a bad pfn?
> >
> > show_mem_removable() will loop sections_per_block times.
> > sections_per_block is 16, but mem->section_count is 8,
> > indicating holes in this memory block. Checking that
> > the memory section is present before checking to see
> > if the memory section is removable fixes the problem.
>
> The patch textually applies to 3.10, 3.9 and perhaps earlier. Should
> it be applied to earlier kernels?
I believe so, since this does not appear to be a recent
regression, but have not verified the problem/fix in
earlier kernels.
Thanks,
--
Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead
SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc rja@sgi.com
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [BUGFIX] drivers/base: fix show_mem_removable to handle missing sections
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:06:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130827160624.GA22918@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130826144959.52fd24cd2833929168ee7e35@linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 02:49:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:23:17 -0500 Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> > "cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory*/removable" crashed the system.
> >
> > The problem is that show_mem_removable() is passing a
> > bad pfn to is_mem_section_removable(), which causes
> > if (!node_online(page_to_nid(page))) to blow up.
> > Why is it passing in a bad pfn?
> >
> > show_mem_removable() will loop sections_per_block times.
> > sections_per_block is 16, but mem->section_count is 8,
> > indicating holes in this memory block. Checking that
> > the memory section is present before checking to see
> > if the memory section is removable fixes the problem.
>
> The patch textually applies to 3.10, 3.9 and perhaps earlier. Should
> it be applied to earlier kernels?
I believe so, since this does not appear to be a recent
regression, but have not verified the problem/fix in
earlier kernels.
Thanks,
--
Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead
SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc rja@sgi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-27 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-23 16:23 [PATCH v2] [BUGFIX] drivers/base: fix show_mem_removable to handle missing sections Russ Anderson
2013-08-23 16:23 ` Russ Anderson
2013-08-26 21:49 ` Andrew Morton
2013-08-26 21:49 ` Andrew Morton
2013-08-27 16:06 ` Russ Anderson [this message]
2013-08-27 16:06 ` Russ Anderson
2013-08-26 23:49 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2013-08-26 23:49 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130827160624.GA22918@sgi.com \
--to=rja@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.