From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com (e28smtp05.in.ibm.com [125.16.236.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3qdqQs3bpYzDq6B for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 21:25:09 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost by e28smtp05.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:55:05 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay03.in.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u34BP0VE7799220 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:55:00 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u34BOtV7020120 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:54:58 +0530 Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 21:24:33 +1000 From: Gavin Shan To: Mel Gorman Cc: Gavin Shan , Michael Ellerman , linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, zhlcindy@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Fix memory corruption caused by deferred page initialization Message-ID: <20160404112433.GA9567@gwshan> Reply-To: Gavin Shan References: <1458921929-15264-1-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <3qXFh60DRNz9sDH@ozlabs.org> <20160326133708.GA382@gwshan> <20160327134827.GA24644@gwshan> <20160331022734.GA12552@gwshan> <20160404083939.GC21128@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20160404083939.GC21128@suse.de> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:39:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: >On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 01:27:34PM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote: >> >So the issue is only existing when CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM=n. The alternative fix would >> >be similar to what we have on !CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM: In early stage, all page structs >> >for bootmem reserved pages are initialized and mark them with PG_reserved. I'm >> >not sure it's worthy to fix it as we won't support bootmem as Michael mentioned. >> > >> >> Mel, could you please confirm if we need a fix on !CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM? If we need, >> I'll respin and send a patch for review. >> > >Given that CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM is not supported and bootmem is meant to be >slowly retiring, I would suggest instead making deferred memory init >depend on NO_BOOTMEM. > Thanks for confirm, Mel. It would be the best strategy to have simplest fix for this issue. I'll send a followup patch to address it. Thanks, Gavin >-- >Mel Gorman >SUSE Labs >