From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [bug, 5.2.16] kswapd/compaction null pointer crash [was Re: xfs_inode not reclaimed/memory leak on 5.2.16]
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:52:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191008085219.GC3321@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1f0f2849-d90e-6563-0034-07ba80f8ba2f@suse.cz>
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:56:41PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/7/19 3:28 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 10/1/19 9:40 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Vlastimil Babka:
> >>
> >>
> >> See below. I don't have debuginfo for this build, and the binary does
> >> not reproduce for some reason. Due to the heavy inlining, it might be
> >> quite hard to figure out what's going on.
> >
> > Thanks, but I'm still not able to "decompile" that in my head.
>
> While staring at the code, I think I found two probably unrelated bugs.
> One is that pfn and page might be desynced when zone starts in the middle
> of pageblock, as the max() is only applied to page and not pfn. But that
> only effectively affects the later pfn_valid_within() checks, which should
> be always true on x86.
>
> The second is that "end of pageblock online and valid" should refer to
> the last pfn of pageblock, not first pfn of next pageblocks. Otherwise we
> might return false needlessly. Mel, what do you think?
>
I think you are correct in both cases. It's perfectly possible I would
not have observed a problem in testing if zones were aligned which I
think is generally the case on my test machines.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-08 9:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-30 7:28 xfs_inode not reclaimed/memory leak on 5.2.16 Florian Weimer
2019-09-30 8:54 ` Dave Chinner
2019-09-30 19:07 ` Florian Weimer
2019-09-30 21:17 ` [bug, 5.2.16] kswapd/compaction null pointer crash [was Re: xfs_inode not reclaimed/memory leak on 5.2.16] Dave Chinner
2019-09-30 21:42 ` Florian Weimer
2019-10-01 9:10 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-01 19:40 ` Florian Weimer
2019-10-07 13:28 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-07 13:56 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-08 8:52 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2019-10-16 19:38 ` Florian Weimer
2019-10-16 20:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-18 17:38 ` Florian Weimer
2019-10-21 8:13 ` Vlastimil Babka
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=20191008085219.GC3321@techsingularity.net \
--to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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.