About SECTION_SIZE_BITS for Sparsemem

[minchan.kim@gmail.com (Minchan Kim)]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:45:41AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 06:52:28PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hello.
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> > > Russell,
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > >> Russell wrote:
> > >> > So, memory starts at 0x20000000 and finishes at 0x25000000. ?That's
> > > fine.
> > >> > That doesn't mean the section size is 16MB.
> > >> >
> > >> > As I've already said, the section size has _nothing_ what so ever to do
> > >> > with the size of memory, or the granularity of the size of memory. ?By
> > >> > way of illustration, it is perfectly legal to have a section size of
> > >> > 256MB but only have 1MB in a section and this is perfectly legal. ?So
> > >> > sections do not have to be completely filled.
> > >> >
> > >> Actually, as you know, the hole's area of mem_map is freed from bootmem if
> > > a
> > >> section has a hole when initializing sparse memory.
> > >>
> > >> I identified that a section doesn't need to be a contiguous area of
> > > physical
> > >> memory when reading your comment with the fact that the mem_map of a
> > > section
> > >> can be smaller than the size of a section.
> > >>
> > >> I found, however, the kernel panics when modifying min_free_kbytes file in
> > >> the proc filesystem if a section has a hole.
> > >>
> > >> While processing the change of min_free_kbytes in the kernel, page
> > >> descriptors in a hole of an online section is accessed.
> > >
> > > As I said, following error happens.
> > > It would be helpful to me if any opinions or comments.
> > >
> > 
> > Could you test below patch?
> > Also, you should select ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL in your config.
> 
> But hang on.  Where are the hole(s)?
> 
> The DRAM setup is:
> 0x20000000-0x25000000, 0x40000000-0x50000000, 0x50000000-0x58000000
> 
> which with SECTION_SIZE_BITS set to 28 gives three sections of memory,
> and each sparsemem section does not have a hole.
> 
> No zone should cross a sparsemem section boundary.
> 
> Moreover, our pfn_valid() now returns false for any and all invalid PFNs.

True if it isn't sparsemem. 
But look at pfn_valid in sparsemem. 

It just checks that there is a section and section_mem_map has SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP.
The first section in above case has just 80M memory but section has 256M. 
So, 0x25000000 - 28000000 is the hole. If you pass pfn whihc is 0x2500000,
let's see pfn_valid. 

1. We pass pfn_to_section_nr check 
2. Both __nr_to_section and valid_section is vaild.

static inline int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn) 
{
        if (pfn_to_section_nr(pfn) >= NR_MEM_SECTIONS)
                return 0;
        return valid_section(__nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn)));
}


What prevent above hole's case?
I think at least pfn_valid in sparsemem need bank range check like pfn_valid of ARM 
in FLATMEM.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim