From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f197.google.com (mail-pf1-f197.google.com [209.85.210.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55518E0038 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:06:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pf1-f197.google.com with SMTP id m3so6908341pfj.14 for ; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 21:06:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (smtp.codeaurora.org. [198.145.29.96]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x6si1850220plv.321.2019.01.09.21.06.46 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Jan 2019 21:06:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:36:43 +0530 From: Arun KS Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] mm/page_alloc.c: memory_hotplug: free pages as higher order In-Reply-To: <20190109105652.40e24fa969a2bb7a58e097a8@linux-foundation.org> References: <1546578076-31716-1-git-send-email-arunks@codeaurora.org> <20190108181352.GI31793@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190109073718.GM31793@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190109084031.GN31793@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190109105754.GR31793@dhcp22.suse.cz> <2efb06e91d9af48bf3d1d38bd50e0458@codeaurora.org> <20190109105652.40e24fa969a2bb7a58e097a8@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: <51ebe46608c1b502bb7985498f29302d@codeaurora.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Michal Hocko , Alexander Duyck , arunks.linux@gmail.com, vbabka@suse.cz, osalvador@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, getarunks@gmail.com On 2019-01-10 00:26, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jan 2019 16:36:36 +0530 Arun KS > wrote: > >> On 2019-01-09 16:27, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Wed 09-01-19 16:12:48, Arun KS wrote: >> > [...] >> >> It will be called once per online of a section and the arg value is >> >> always >> >> set to 0 while entering online_pages_range. >> > >> > You rare right that this will be the case in the most simple scenario. >> > But the point is that the callback can be called several times from >> > walk_system_ram_range and then your current code wouldn't work >> > properly. >> >> Thanks. Will use += > > The v8 patch > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1547032395-24582-1-git-send-email-arunks@codeaurora.org/T/#u > > (which you apparently sent 7 minutes after typing the above) still has > > static int online_pages_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long > nr_pages, > void *arg) > { > - unsigned long i; > unsigned long onlined_pages = *(unsigned long *)arg; > - struct page *page; > > if (PageReserved(pfn_to_page(start_pfn))) > - for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) { > - page = pfn_to_page(start_pfn + i); > - (*online_page_callback)(page); > - onlined_pages++; > - } > + onlined_pages = online_pages_blocks(start_pfn, nr_pages); > > > Even then the code makes no sense. > > static int online_pages_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long > nr_pages, > void *arg) > { > unsigned long onlined_pages = *(unsigned long *)arg; > > if (PageReserved(pfn_to_page(start_pfn))) > onlined_pages += online_pages_blocks(start_pfn, nr_pages); > > online_mem_sections(start_pfn, start_pfn + nr_pages); > > *(unsigned long *)arg += onlined_pages; > return 0; > } > > Either the final assignment should be > > *(unsigned long *)arg = onlined_pages; > > or the initialization should be > > unsigned long onlined_pages = 0; > > > > This is becoming a tad tiresome and I'd prefer not to have to check up > on such things. Can we please get this right? Sorry about that. Will fix it. Regards, Arun