lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Revert "mm/page_alloc: fix memmap_init_zone pageblock alignment"
On 14 March 2018 at 15:54, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 14 March 2018 at 14:54, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed 14-03-18 14:35:12, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 14 March 2018 at 14:13, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> > Does http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180313224240.25295-1-neelx@redhat.com
>>> > fix your issue? From the debugging info you provided it should because
>>> > the patch prevents jumping backwards.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The patch does fix the boot hang.
>>>
>>> But I am concerned that we are papering over a fundamental flaw in
>>> memblock_next_valid_pfn().
>>
>> It seems that memblock_next_valid_pfn is doing the right thing here. It
>> is the alignment which moves the pfn back AFAICS. I am not really
>> impressed about the original patch either, to be completely honest.
>> It just looks awfully tricky. I still didn't manage to wrap my head
>> around the original issue though so I do not have much better ideas to
>> be honest.
>
> So first of all, memblock_next_valid_pfn() never refers to its max_pfn
> argument, which is odd nut easily fixed.
> Then, the whole idea of substracting one so that the pfn++ will
> produce the expected value is rather hacky,
>
> But the real problem is that rounding down pfn for the next iteration
> is dodgy, because early_pfn_valid() isn't guaranteed to return true
> for the rounded down value. I know it is probably fine in reality, but
> dodgy as hell. The same applies to the call to early_pfn_in_nid() btw
>
> So how about something like this (apologies on Gmail's behalf for the
> whitespace damage, I can resend it as a proper patch)
>
>
> ---------8<-----------
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 3d974cb2a1a1..b89ca999ee3b 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -5352,28 +5352,29 @@
> * function. They do not exist on hotplugged memory.
> */
> if (context != MEMMAP_EARLY)
> goto not_early;
>
> - if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn)) {
> + if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn) || !early_pfn_in_nid(pfn, nid)) {
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
> /*
> * Skip to the pfn preceding the next valid one (or
> * end_pfn), such that we hit a valid pfn (or end_pfn)
> * on our next iteration of the loop. Note that it needs
> * to be pageblock aligned even when the region itself
> * is not. move_freepages_block() can shift ahead of
> * the valid region but still depends on correct page
> * metadata.
> */
> - pfn = (memblock_next_valid_pfn(pfn, end_pfn) &
> - ~(pageblock_nr_pages-1)) - 1;
> -#endif
> + pfn = memblock_next_valid_pfn(pfn, end_pfn);
> + if (pfn >= end_pfn)
> + break;
> + pfn &= ~(pageblock_nr_pages - 1);
> +#else
> continue;
> +#endif
> }
> - if (!early_pfn_in_nid(pfn, nid))
> - continue;
> if (!update_defer_init(pgdat, pfn, end_pfn, &nr_initialised))
> break;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
> /*
> ---------8<-----------
>
> This ensures that we enter the remainder of the loop with a properly
> aligned pfn, rather than tweaking the value of pfn so it assumes the
> expected value after 'pfn++'

Um, this does not actually solve the issue. I guess this is due to the
fact that a single pageblock size chunk could have both valid and
invalid PFNs, and so rounding down the first PFN of the second valid
chunk moves you back to the first chunk.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 17:41    [W:0.080 / U:1.900 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site