From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D3AC33CB2 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 03:53:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21CC20708 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 03:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="y9iEqdTL" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F21CC20708 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 6C0DF6B04A8; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 22:53:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6724E6B04A9; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 22:53:01 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 587706B04AA; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 22:53:01 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0093.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.93]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4342E6B04A8 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 22:53:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin10.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F341CBE for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 03:53:00 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76436558520.10.cake51_7197deaff0328 X-HE-Tag: cake51_7197deaff0328 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2459 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 03:53:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 085C920705; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 03:52:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1580442779; bh=6YOS1TzHipW9uaUsftfB2UIk0lglYFMmhV7D3s6N+PA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=y9iEqdTLYa4B914rpbwC+c5Gregjh8Iz30jxyjm4mT0cv4Cxve3RBTPGVxwWwJNAC rBkazFM5o06MQEk52Dra7RO9nigS8NQy2BLFyiswuQIBLH6QSe55P+ncufxQGuI2qL bxJrEoirPlptW+WMF28nv408z+PsKRwLXIozepLg= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 19:52:58 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexey Dobriyan , Bob Picco , Daniel Jordan , Dan Williams , Michal Hocko , Michal Hocko , Naoya Horiguchi , Oscar Salvador , Pavel Tatashin , Stephen Rothwell , Steven Sistare Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mm: fix max_pfn not falling on section boundary Message-Id: <20200130195258.6609880ac35f27f29238f804@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20191211163201.17179-1-david@redhat.com> References: <20191211163201.17179-1-david@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:31:58 +0100 David Hildenbrand wrote: > Playing with different memory sizes for a x86-64 guest, I discovered that > some memmaps (highest section if max_mem does not fall on the section > boundary) are marked as being valid and online, but contain garbage. We > have to properly initialize these memmaps. > > Looking at /proc/kpageflags and friends, I found some more issues, > partially related to this. We're still showing very little (ie no) review activity on this patchset.