From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>, Yuan Liu <yuan1.liu@intel.com>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Yong Hu <yong.hu@intel.com>,
Nanhai Zou <nanhai.zou@intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Qiuxu Zhuo <qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com>,
Yu C Chen <yu.c.chen@intel.com>, Pan Deng <pan.deng@intel.com>,
Tianyou Li <tianyou.li@intel.com>,
Chen Zhang <zhangchen.kidd@jd.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/memory hotplug/unplug: Optimize zone contiguous check when changing pfn range
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 20:24:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1928b6b0-2ec3-43ca-a41b-e880d974af04@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260413130633.knzkliyqvjhuz2kd@master>
> With the last memblock region fits in Node 1 Zone Normal.
>
> Then I punch a hole in this region with 2M(subsection) size with following
> change, to mimic there is a hole in memory range:
>
> @@ -1372,5 +1372,8 @@ __init void e820__memblock_setup(void)
> /* Throw away partial pages: */
> memblock_trim_memory(PAGE_SIZE);
>
> + memblock_remove(0x140000000, 0x200000);
> +
> memblock_dump_all();
> }
>
> Then the memblock dump shows:
>
> MEMBLOCK configuration:
> memory size = 0x000000017fd7dc00 reserved size = 0x0000000005a97 9c2
> memory.cnt = 0x4
> memory[0x0] [0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff], 0x000000000009e000 bytes on node 0 flags: 0x0
> memory[0x1] [0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffdefff], 0x00000000bfedf000 bytes on node 0 flags: 0x0
> +- memory[0x2] [0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff], 0x0000000040000000 bytes on node 1 flags: 0x0
> +- memory[0x3] [0x0000000140200000-0x00000001bfffffff], 0x000000007fe00000 bytes on node 1 flags: 0x0
>
> We can see the original one memblock region is divided into two, with a hole
> of 2M in the middle.
Yes, that makes sense.
>
> Not sure this is a reasonable mimic of memory hole. Also I tried to
> punch a larger hole, e.g. 10M, still see the behavioral change.
>
> The /proc/zoneinfo result:
>
> w/o patch
>
> Node 1, zone Normal
> pages free 469271
> boost 0
> min 8567
> low 10708
> high 12849
> promo 14990
> spanned 786432
> present 785920
> contigu 0 <--- zone is non-contiguous
> managed 766024
> cma 0
>
> with patch
>
> Node 1, zone Normal
> pages free 121098
> boost 0
> min 8665
> low 10831
> high 12997
> promo 15163
> spanned 786432
> present 785920
> contigu 1 <--- zone is contiguous
> managed 773041
> cma 0
>
> This shows we treat Node 1 Zone Normal as non-contiguous before, but treat
> it a contiguous zone after this patch.
>
> Reason:
>
> set_zone_contiguous()
> __pageblock_pfn_to_page()
> pfn_to_online_page()
> pfn_section_valid() <--- check subsection
>
> When SPARSEMEM_VMEMMEP is set, pfn_section_valid() checks subsection bit to
> decide if it is valid. For a hole, the corresponding bit is not set. So it
> is non-contiguous before the patch.
>
> After this patch, the memory map in this hole also contributes to
> pages_with_online_memmap, so it is treated as contiguous.
That means that mm init code actually initialized a memmap, so there is
a memmap there that is properly initialized?
So init_unavailable_range()->for_each_valid_pfn() processed these
sub-section holes I guess.
subsection_map_init() takes care of initializing the subsections. That
happens before memmap_init() in free_area_init().
Is there a problem in for_each_valid_pfn()?
And I think there is in first_valid_pfn:
if (valid_section(ms) &&
(early_section(ms) || pfn_section_first_valid(ms, &pfn))) {
rcu_read_unlock_sched();
return pfn;
}
The PFN is valid, but we actually care about whether it will be online.
So likely, we should skip over sub-sections here also for early sections
(even though the memmap exist, nobody should be looking at it, just like
for an offline memory section).
>
> Some question:
>
> I suspect with !SPARSEMEM_VMEMMEP, we always treat Zone Normal as
> contiguous, because we don't set subsection. So it looks the behavior is
> different from SPARSEMEM_VMEMMEP. But I didn't manage to build kernel with
> !SPARSEMEM_VMEMMEP to verify.
>
> I see the discussion on defining zone->contiguous as safe to use
> pfn_to_page() for the whole zone. For this purpose, current change looks
> good to me. Since we do allocate and init memory map for holes.
Right.
>
> But pageblock_pfn_to_page() is used for compaction and other. A pfn with
> memory map but no actual memory seems not guarantee to be a usable page. So
> the correct usage of pageblock_pfn_to_page() is after
> pageblock_pfn_to_page() return a page, we should validate each page in the
> range before using? I am a little lost here.
These non-existent pages (holes) are no different than allocated
un-movable memory. So compaction code must deal with them. Just like
smaller memory holes that don't cover a full memory section.
--
Cheers,
David
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-13 18:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-08 3:16 Yuan Liu
2026-04-08 7:36 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-04-08 12:29 ` Liu, Yuan1
2026-04-08 12:31 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-04-08 12:37 ` Liu, Yuan1
2026-04-09 14:40 ` Mike Rapoport
2026-04-09 15:08 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-04-13 13:06 ` Wei Yang
2026-04-13 18:24 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [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=1928b6b0-2ec3-43ca-a41b-e880d974af04@kernel.org \
--to=david@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nanhai.zou@intel.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=pan.deng@intel.com \
--cc=qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com \
--cc=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=tianyou.li@intel.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=yong.hu@intel.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=yuan1.liu@intel.com \
--cc=zhangchen.kidd@jd.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