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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3141C54EE9 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:23:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2EC048D0006; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 12:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 29B3C8D0002; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 12:23:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1632A8D0006; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 12:23:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082CD8D0002 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 12:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF473140A83 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:23:20 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79889438160.05.9819945 Received: from mail-ej1-f54.google.com (mail-ej1-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE2118009E for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:23:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f54.google.com with SMTP id r18so12035343eja.11 for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2022 09:23:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=bdMeN6FnqK1npcK6VCQhFv3779r/x2/CSa4ry5MamXU=; b=jM4kqEGLo0x4c9SugkK2RZKbi8J75NwCzwL+WzDAvgOr3Awyy2M5reAUlyKUIwSmVQ J9BI623JbDsn4hxWXBzGM83644hklSb/eJHFal/qOnvs0cA5VWs+JZrHroKPGVlfzABE QM900Eal8QIX1v9trvzd3GY/4kUfcnb02cpp+9UP+vtuyX7zS4gRkhFcNNcpX4EOp1t5 KVrLCi1YIyLUM44gXELwOOnu8pLYGYFBJo7roHRlNiMDIxL9Nd9BiMUzAjSEqOPoCp7r BJxtczTXopJ0WpmOUI5eQgMgYSP427DqVjx3c6Ov43PItJTNHC8ZNQdB7GqzQYkfhnxz qxNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=bdMeN6FnqK1npcK6VCQhFv3779r/x2/CSa4ry5MamXU=; b=iAjvdwtzmJP+0AhrA6coYMKQuPZH7/KWDoY6rWU65yZchkEiFrWP7AGmirl3vNtMK7 hFtORSe58kGtOsTwakjwOs5WiDOl/H4hpfriQcVVqUatX46QEcELVGOlcOaIPEZR9kQH kaOnv6NhP6pyqnMLiGWjVMK+FG4oHEzJrWSEv/yoP2RFpvzh6T3yJpqM3iFAfoXRV8l7 wxmKp1Zef3JuRBfK2keUxzgEPc2xZvxr/uql10Sc1MWbVia2Xis89aWDbdMhf3/KBkb3 aDl7t/3O0e/X9yHc3QCKybS+ULChAxulLzNhJhV5a0uhOP0ArTjlKiM2OFHYBKQfaLbQ zxRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo21GQJ1tCra2hwlDdTGG+i+j/DyQHK2nH96wsbv4uh49JXenrw7 aVE2sZ8unngYBriz/UrcQ+WEnW6Kf8Wn6xnoZpfY7Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5TviwaWPrrPIjyGF6zpvI4oDr1TURdLxrCAE9HpPDgDYml5qDeUiGF2d+s09eD9ex7BL2ntp4DzywuHlwtCbg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:948f:b0:770:639:fbd1 with SMTP id dm15-20020a170907948f00b007700639fbd1mr6304073ejc.255.1662654198886; Thu, 08 Sep 2022 09:23:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220614120231.48165-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220614120231.48165-3-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <8cf143e7-2b62-1a1e-de84-e3dcc6c027a4@suse.cz> <20220810141959.ictqchz7josyd7pt@techsingularity.net> <2981e25e-9cda-518a-9750-b8694f2356b5@amd.com> <984e07ed-914f-93ca-a141-3fc8677878e0@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dionna Amalie Glaze Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 09:23:07 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 02/14] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Dave Hansen , Tom Lendacky , Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Joerg Roedel , Ard Biesheuvel , Andi Kleen , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Dario Faggioli , Mike Rapoport , David Hildenbrand , Marcelo Cerri , tim.gardner@canonical.com, Khalid ElMously , philip.cox@canonical.com, "the arch/x86 maintainers" , Linux Memory Management List , linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1662654200; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=bdMeN6FnqK1npcK6VCQhFv3779r/x2/CSa4ry5MamXU=; b=sAk2zNBUfDaj7u/QGdcu6DO3Bo1HJ1gu+l146fvPq/te0crO9kbHlNFQOWMim0e8ysmkcL lyOrGzF2W4L4d/5WaABCXgsbdAzsTkPRWshc1Iw7h2Yyw8cz7hlLuATlMIU+m8h6nqq1ig Mtb8KdjhcBJsGeKMhSAyz41RsVJXYrw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf24.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=jM4kqEGL; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf24.hostedemail.com: domain of dionnaglaze@google.com designates 209.85.218.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dionnaglaze@google.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1662654200; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=6l56yku1STN3Lvw4YRgY7t5CDW0srS5IHqOOGHqCTfGl2o3CU2DxDMHSF6Jx950uqLyBf3 jaF55LpSQva01txqxJd0atejavl4NaT5RfqHPqiHjth6OKq1kkoc13iuoLD2bJlAb6cIOz gROneF4RkauKr6ShQSAx58UakOGSWmQ= X-Stat-Signature: wa7wb9jxicyy1uytrzcqirwfkeirx7bj X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8CE2118009E Authentication-Results: imf24.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=jM4kqEGL; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf24.hostedemail.com: domain of dionnaglaze@google.com designates 209.85.218.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dionnaglaze@google.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-HE-Tag: 1662654200-980183 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: > > Looks like the first access to the memory map fails, although I think > it's not in INIT_LIST_HEAD() but rather in init_page_count(). > > I'd start with making sure that page_alloc::memmap_alloc() actually returns > accepted memory. If you build kernel with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y the memory map > will poisoned in this function, so my guess is it'd crash there. > That's a wonderful hint, thank you! I did not run this test CONFIG_DEBUG_VM set, but you think it's possible it could still be here? > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike. -- -Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)