From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/spase: never partially remove memmap for early section
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:52:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200624035236.GI3346@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200624034638.GA10687@L-31X9LVDL-1304.local>
On 06/24/20 at 11:46am, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 09:47:37AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> >On 06/23/20 at 05:21pm, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:43 AM Wei Yang
> >> <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > For early sections, we assumes its memmap will never be partially
> >> > removed. But current behavior breaks this.
> >>
> >> Where do we assume that?
> >>
> >> The primary use case for this was mapping pmem that collides with
> >> System-RAM in the same 128MB section. That collision will certainly be
> >> depopulated on-demand depending on the state of the pmem device. So,
> >> I'm not understanding the problem or the benefit of this change.
> >
> >I was also confused when review this patch, the patch log is a little
> >short and simple. From the current code, with SPARSE_VMEMMAP enabled, we
> >do build memmap for the whole memory section during boot, even though
> >some of them may be partially populated. We just mark the subsection map
> >for present pages.
> >
> >Later, if pmem device is mapped into the partially boot memory section,
> >we just fill the relevant subsection map, do return directly, w/o building
> >the memmap for it, in section_activate(). Because the memmap for the
> >unpresent RAM part have been there. I guess this is what Wei is trying to
> >do to keep the behaviour be consistent for pmem device adding, or
> >pmem device removing and later adding again.
> >
> >Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> You are right here.
>
> >
> >To me, fixing it looks good. But a clear doc or code comment is
> >necessary so that people can understand the code with less time.
> >Leaving it as is doesn't cause harm. I personally tend to choose
> >the former.
> >
>
> The former is to add a clear doc?
Sorry for the confusion. The former means the fix in your patch. Maybe a
improved log and some code comment adding can make it more perfect.
>
> > paging_init()
> > ->sparse_init()
> > ->sparse_init_nid()
> > {
> > ...
> > for_each_present_section_nr(pnum_begin, pnum) {
> > ...
> > map = __populate_section_memmap(pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION,
> > nid, NULL);
> > ...
> > }
> > }
> > ...
> > ->zone_sizes_init()
> > ->free_area_init()
> > {
> > for_each_mem_pfn_range(i, MAX_NUMNODES, &start_pfn, &end_pfn, &nid) {
> > subsection_map_init(start_pfn, end_pfn - start_pfn);
> > }
> > {
> >
> > __add_pages()
> > ->sparse_add_section()
> > ->section_activate()
> > {
> > ...
> > fill_subsection_map();
> > if (nr_pages < PAGES_PER_SECTION && early_section(ms)) <----------*********
> > return pfn_to_page(pfn);
> > ...
> > }
> >>
>
> --
> Wei Yang
> Help you, Help me
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-24 3:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-23 9:42 [PATCH] mm/spase: never partially remove memmap for early section Wei Yang
2020-06-23 12:44 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-23 13:02 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-23 13:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-23 15:18 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-23 21:48 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 6:13 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 16:10 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-24 22:05 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 22:20 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-24 22:44 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 23:47 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-25 5:53 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-25 19:46 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-25 22:29 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-29 8:34 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-29 22:13 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-29 22:58 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-30 7:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-25 22:39 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-26 4:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-24 7:48 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-24 8:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-24 8:13 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 8:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-24 8:50 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-24 22:27 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 0:21 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-24 1:11 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 1:47 ` Baoquan He
2020-06-24 2:14 ` Baoquan He
2020-06-24 3:46 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 3:52 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2020-06-24 3:56 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 8:51 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-24 22:08 ` Wei Yang
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=20200624035236.GI3346@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.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.