Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] mm/mm_init: Use for_each_valid_pfn() in init_unavailable_range()

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 25.04.25 21:08, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On 25 April 2025 17:17:25 BST, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 23.04.25 15:33, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
>>>
>>> Currently, memmap_init initializes pfn_hole with 0 instead of
>>> ARCH_PFN_OFFSET. Then init_unavailable_range will start iterating each
>>> page from the page at address zero to the first available page, but it
>>> won't do anything for pages below ARCH_PFN_OFFSET because pfn_valid
>>> won't pass.
>>>
>>> If ARCH_PFN_OFFSET is very large (e.g., something like 2^64-2GiB if the
>>> kernel is used as a library and loaded at a very high address), the
>>> pointless iteration for pages below ARCH_PFN_OFFSET will take a very
>>> long time, and the kernel will look stuck at boot time.
>>>
>>> Use for_each_valid_pfn() to skip the pointless iterations.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Ruihan Li <lrh2000@pku.edu.cn>
>>> Suggested-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
>>> Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org>
>>> Tested-by: Ruihan Li <lrh2000@pku.edu.cn>
>>> ---
>>>    mm/mm_init.c | 6 +-----
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/mm_init.c b/mm/mm_init.c
>>> index 41884f2155c4..0d1a4546825c 100644
>>> --- a/mm/mm_init.c
>>> +++ b/mm/mm_init.c
>>> @@ -845,11 +845,7 @@ static void __init init_unavailable_range(unsigned long spfn,
>>>    	unsigned long pfn;
>>>    	u64 pgcnt = 0;
>>>    -	for (pfn = spfn; pfn < epfn; pfn++) {
>>> -		if (!pfn_valid(pageblock_start_pfn(pfn))) {
>>> -			pfn = pageblock_end_pfn(pfn) - 1;
>>> -			continue;
>>> -		}
>>
>> So, if the first pfn in a pageblock is not valid, we skip the whole pageblock ...
>>
>>> +	for_each_valid_pfn(pfn, spfn, epfn) {
>>>    		__init_single_page(pfn_to_page(pfn), pfn, zone, node);
>>>    		__SetPageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn));
>>>    		pgcnt++;
>>
>> but here, we would process further pfns inside such a pageblock?
>>
> 
> Is it not the case that either *all*, or *none*, of the PFNs within a given pageblock will be valid?

Hmm, good point. I was thinking about sub-sections, but all early 
sections are fully valid.

(Also, at least on x86, the subsection size should match the pageblock 
size; might not be the case on other architectures, like arm64 with 64K 
base pages ...)

> 
> I assumed that was *why* it had that skip, as an attempt at the kind of optimisation that for_each_valid_pfn() now gives us?

But it's interesting in this code that we didn't optimize for "if the 
first pfn is valid, all the remaining ones are valid". We would still 
check each PFN.

In any case, trying to figure out why Lorenzo ran into an issue ... if 
it's nit because of the pageblock, maybe something in for_each_valid_pfn 
with sparsemem is still shaky.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb