Re: [PATCH v7] mm/page_alloc.c: memory_hotplug: free pages as higher order

[Arun KS <arunks@codeaurora.org>]

On 2019-01-09 13:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 09-01-19 11:28:52, Arun KS wrote:
>> On 2019-01-08 23:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Tue 08-01-19 09:56:09, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 10:31 +0530, Arun KS wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > >  static int online_pages_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
>> > > >  			void *arg)
>> > > >  {
>> > > > -	unsigned long i;
>> > > >  	unsigned long onlined_pages = *(unsigned long *)arg;
>> > > > -	struct page *page;
>> > > >
>> > > >  	if (PageReserved(pfn_to_page(start_pfn)))
>> > > > -		for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
>> > > > -			page = pfn_to_page(start_pfn + i);
>> > > > -			(*online_page_callback)(page);
>> > > > -			onlined_pages++;
>> > > > -		}
>> > > > +		onlined_pages = online_pages_blocks(start_pfn, nr_pages);
>> > >
>> > > Shouldn't this be a "+=" instead of an "="? It seems like you are
>> > > going
>> > > to lose your count otherwise.
>> >
>> > You are right of course. I should have noticed during the review.
>> > Thanks!
>> 
>> I think we don't need to. The caller function is setting onlined_pages 
>> = 0
>> before calling online_pages_range().
>> And there are no other reference to online_pages_range other than from
>> online_pages().
> 
> Are you missing that we accumulate onlined_pages via
> 	*(unsigned long *)arg = onlined_pages;
> in online_pages_range?

In my testing I didn't find any problem. To match the code being 
replaced and to avoid any corner cases, it is better to use +=
Will update the patch.

Regards,
Arun