From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/spase: never partially remove memmap for early section
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:14:03 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200624021403.GH3346@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200624014737.GG3346@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
On 06/24/20 at 09:47am, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 06/23/20 at 05:21pm, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:43 AM Wei Yang
> > <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > For early sections, we assumes its memmap will never be partially
> > > removed. But current behavior breaks this.
> >
> > Where do we assume that?
> >
> > The primary use case for this was mapping pmem that collides with
> > System-RAM in the same 128MB section. That collision will certainly be
> > depopulated on-demand depending on the state of the pmem device. So,
> > I'm not understanding the problem or the benefit of this change.
>
> I was also confused when review this patch, the patch log is a little
> short and simple. From the current code, with SPARSE_VMEMMAP enabled, we
> do build memmap for the whole memory section during boot, even though
> some of them may be partially populated. We just mark the subsection map
> for present pages.
>
> Later, if pmem device is mapped into the partially boot memory section,
> we just fill the relevant subsection map, do return directly, w/o building
> the memmap for it, in section_activate(). Because the memmap for the
> unpresent RAM part have been there. I guess this is what Wei is trying to
> do to keep the behaviour be consistent for pmem device adding, or
OK, from Wei's reply I realized this patch is a necessary fix. If we
depoluate the partial memmap for pmem removing, the later pmem re-adding
won't have a valid memmap.
> pmem device removing and later adding again.
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> To me, fixing it looks good. But a clear doc or code comment is
> necessary so that people can understand the code with less time.
> Leaving it as is doesn't cause harm. I personally tend to choose
> the former.
>
> paging_init()
> ->sparse_init()
> ->sparse_init_nid()
> {
> ...
> for_each_present_section_nr(pnum_begin, pnum) {
> ...
> map = __populate_section_memmap(pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION,
> nid, NULL);
> ...
> }
> }
> ...
> ->zone_sizes_init()
> ->free_area_init()
> {
> for_each_mem_pfn_range(i, MAX_NUMNODES, &start_pfn, &end_pfn, &nid) {
> subsection_map_init(start_pfn, end_pfn - start_pfn);
> }
> {
>
> __add_pages()
> ->sparse_add_section()
> ->section_activate()
> {
> ...
> fill_subsection_map();
> if (nr_pages < PAGES_PER_SECTION && early_section(ms)) <----------*********
> return pfn_to_page(pfn);
> ...
> }
> >
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-24 2:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-23 9:42 Wei Yang
2020-06-23 12:44 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-23 13:02 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-23 13:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-23 15:18 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-23 21:48 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 6:13 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 16:10 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-24 22:05 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 22:20 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-24 22:44 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 23:47 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-25 5:53 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-25 19:46 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-25 22:29 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-29 8:34 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-29 22:13 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-29 22:58 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-30 7:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-25 22:39 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-26 4:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-24 7:48 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-24 8:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-24 8:13 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 8:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-24 8:50 ` Michal Hocko
2020-06-24 22:27 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 0:21 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-24 1:11 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 1:47 ` Baoquan He
2020-06-24 2:14 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2020-06-24 3:46 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 3:52 ` Baoquan He
2020-06-24 3:56 ` Wei Yang
2020-06-24 8:51 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-06-24 22:08 ` Wei Yang
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=20200624021403.GH3346@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.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