linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, zhlcindy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	bsingharora@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] powerpc/mm: Support bootmem for PPC64 again
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 23:50:08 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160326125008.GA30131@gwshan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3qXF961KWTz9s4x@ozlabs.org>

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 08:23:54PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>On Fri, 2016-25-03 at 16:03:41 UTC, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM is enabled on PPC platforms by default. However,
>> user might disable that to have bootmem for other purpose. So it's
>> resonable to support it.
>
>Hi Gavin,
>
>Sorry but I don't understand. We deliberately removed bootmem support, and don't
>want it back, it doesn't add anything other than complexity. See 10239733ee86
>("powerpc: Remove bootmem allocator").
>
>I wasn't aware there was any way to enable it? If there is we should fix that.
>

[Cc Balbir so that I needn't reply separately]

Michael, here's the history: Li, who is in the cc list, backports deferred
page initialization feature from upstream kernel to RHEL 7.2 (3.10.0-357.el7,
or RHEL7.3?). Eventually, she runs into system kernel crash that should be caused
by memory corruption. In RHEL kernel, CONFIG_BOOTMEM and CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT
are enabled at same time. Li observed the issue on pSeries platform.

I jumped in to help understanding what was going on. I tried to reproduce the issue
on PowerNV platform with upstream kernel (v4.5-rc7) and found bootmem is never supported.
In order to trigger the system crash with exact scenario that Li had. I have to support
bootmem first of all.

I guess it's fine to remove bootmem which allocates memory in page granularity. From
the perspective, it's not different from memblock. But user might still need bootmem
supported in code level. The story I told might be not enough to get bootmem to be
supported in code level. If that's the case, please ignore the patch. At least, we
won't support bootmem in long term :-)

Thanks,
Gavin

      reply	other threads:[~2016-03-26 14:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-25 16:03 [PATCH RFC] powerpc/mm: Support bootmem for PPC64 again Gavin Shan
2016-03-26  7:15 ` Balbir Singh
2016-03-26  9:23 ` [RFC] " Michael Ellerman
2016-03-26 12:50   ` Gavin Shan [this message]

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=20160326125008.GA30131@gwshan \
    --to=gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=zhlcindy@linux.vnet.ibm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).