Re: [PATCH v6 08/10] mm/memory_hotplug: Don't check for "all holes" in shrink_zone_span()

David Hildenbrand
2020-02-05T13:20:52Z

On 05.02.20 13:43, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 02/04/20 at 03:42pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 04.02.20 15:25, Baoquan He wrote:
>>> On 10/06/19 at 10:56am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> If we have holes, the holes will automatically get detected and removed
>>>> once we remove the next bigger/smaller section. The extra checks can
>>>> go.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>>>> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
>>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
>>>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 34 +++++++---------------------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>> index f294918f7211..8dafa1ba8d9f 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>> @@ -393,6 +393,9 @@ static void shrink_zone_span(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn,
>>>> if (pfn) {
>>>> zone->zone_start_pfn = pfn;
>>>> zone->spanned_pages = zone_end_pfn - pfn;
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + zone->zone_start_pfn = 0;
>>>> + zone->spanned_pages = 0;
>>>> }
>>>> } else if (zone_end_pfn == end_pfn) {
>>>> /*
>>>> @@ -405,34 +408,11 @@ static void shrink_zone_span(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn,
>>>> start_pfn);
>>>> if (pfn)
>>>> zone->spanned_pages = pfn - zone_start_pfn + 1;
>>>> + else {
>>>> + zone->zone_start_pfn = 0;
>>>> + zone->spanned_pages = 0;
>>>
>>> Thinking in which case (zone_start_pfn != start_pfn) and it comes here.
>>
>> Could only happen in case the zone_start_pfn would have been "out of the
>> zone already". If you ask me: unlikely :)
>
> Yeah, I also think it's unlikely to come here.
>
> The 'if (zone_start_pfn == start_pfn)' checking also covers the case
> (zone_start_pfn == start_pfn && zone_end_pfn == end_pfn). So this
> zone_start_pfn/spanned_pages resetting can be removed to avoid
> confusion.

At least I would find it more confusing without it (or want a comment
explaining why this does not have to be handled and why the !pfn case is
not possible).

Anyhow, that patch is already upstream and I don't consider this high
priority. Thanks :)

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb