Re: [PATCH] memory hotplug: fix page_zone() calculation in test_pages_isolated()

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-10-28T00:32:54Z

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:59:29 +0100
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> Instead of using pfn_to_page() you could also have just called
> > __first_valid_page() again. But, that would have duplicated a bit of
> > work, even though not much in practice because the caches are still hot.
> >
> > Technically, you wouldn't even need to check the return from
> > __first_valid_page() since you know it has a valid result because you
> > made the exact same call a moment before.
> >
> > Anyway, can you remove the !page check, fix up the changelog and resend?
>
> Calling __first_valid_page() again might be a good idea. Thinking about it
> now, I guess there is still a problem left with my patch, but for reasons
> other than what you said :) If the loop is completed with page == NULL,
> we will return -EBUSY with the new patch. But there may have been valid
> pages before, and only some memory hole at the end. In this case, returning
> -EBUSY would probably be wrong.
>
> Kamezawa, this loop/function was added by you, what do you think?
>

I think there is a bug, as you wrote.
But
- "pfn" and "end_pfn" (and pfn in the middle of them) can be in different zone on strange machine.

Now: test_pages_isolated() is called in following sequence.

check_page_isolated()
walk_memory_resource() # read resource range and get start/end of pfn
-> chcek_page_isolated_cb()
-> test_page_isolated().

I think all pages within [start, end) passed to test_pages_isolated() should be in the same zone.

please change this to
check_page_isolated()
walk_memory_resource()
-> check_page_isolated_cb()
-> walk_page_range_in_same_zone() # get page range in the same zone.
-> test_page_isolated().

Could you try ?

Thanks,
-Kame