From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Zaslonko Mikhail <zaslonko@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Pavel.Tatashin@microsoft.com,
schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm, memory_hotplug: Initialize struct pages for the full memory section
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:19:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181214101651.GE5624@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <674c53e2-e4b3-f21f-4613-b149acef7e53@linux.bm.com>
[Your From address seems to have a typo (linux.bm.com) - fixed]
On Fri 14-12-18 10:33:55, Zaslonko Mikhail wrote:
[...]
> Yes, it might still trigger PF_POISONED_CHECK if the first page
> of the pageblock is left uninitialized (poisoned).
> But in order to cover these exceptional cases we would need to
> adjust memory_hotplug sysfs handler functions with similar
> checks (as in the for loop of memmap_init_zone()). And I guess
> that is what we were trying to avoid (adding special cases to
> memory_hotplug paths).
is_mem_section_removable should test pfn_valid_within at least.
But that would require some care because next_active_pageblock expects
aligned pages. Ble, this code is just horrible. I would just remove it
altogether. I strongly suspect that nobody is using it for anything
reasonable anyway. The only reliable way to check whether a block is
removable is to remove it. Everything else is just racy.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Zaslonko Mikhail <zaslonko@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
Mikhail Zaslonko <zaslonko@linux.ibm.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Pavel.Tatashin@microsoft.com,
schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm, memory_hotplug: Initialize struct pages for the full memory section
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:19:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181214101651.GE5624@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <674c53e2-e4b3-f21f-4613-b149acef7e53@linux.bm.com>
[Your From address seems to have a typo (linux.bm.com) - fixed]
On Fri 14-12-18 10:33:55, Zaslonko Mikhail wrote:
[...]
> Yes, it might still trigger PF_POISONED_CHECK if the first page
> of the pageblock is left uninitialized (poisoned).
> But in order to cover these exceptional cases we would need to
> adjust memory_hotplug sysfs handler functions with similar
> checks (as in the for loop of memmap_init_zone()). And I guess
> that is what we were trying to avoid (adding special cases to
> memory_hotplug paths).
is_mem_section_removable should test pfn_valid_within at least.
But that would require some care because next_active_pageblock expects
aligned pages. Ble, this code is just horrible. I would just remove it
altogether. I strongly suspect that nobody is using it for anything
reasonable anyway. The only reliable way to check whether a block is
removable is to remove it. Everything else is just racy.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-14 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-12 17:27 [PATCH v2 0/1] Initialize struct pages for the full section Mikhail Zaslonko
2018-12-12 17:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] mm, memory_hotplug: Initialize struct pages for the full memory section Mikhail Zaslonko
2018-12-13 3:46 ` Wei Yang
2018-12-13 12:37 ` Zaslonko Mikhail
2018-12-13 15:12 ` Wei Yang
2018-12-14 9:33 ` Zaslonko Mikhail
2018-12-14 10:19 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-12-14 10:19 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-15 0:26 ` Wei Yang
2018-12-13 12:59 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-14 15:22 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-12-14 15:49 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-12-14 19:23 ` Gerald Schaefer
2018-12-17 9:38 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-12-17 12:28 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-17 13:29 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-12-17 13:35 ` Michal Hocko
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=20181214101651.GE5624@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=Pavel.Tatashin@microsoft.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=zaslonko@linux.ibm.com \
/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.