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=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 2B170C34055 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:37:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F6B2465D for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:37:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="b+UsIt9f" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E4F6B2465D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 669826B0007; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 61A086B0008; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:37:39 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 52EED6B000A; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:37:39 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0237.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.237]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0816B0007 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6492180AD802 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:37:38 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76507432596.11.order50_25807e70f2f5f X-HE-Tag: order50_25807e70f2f5f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3899 Received: from mail-ot1-f67.google.com (mail-ot1-f67.google.com [209.85.210.67]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:37:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-f67.google.com with SMTP id g64so693171otb.13 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:37:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iSsfOBW1rnJ26Vr6Y/Sa9MI6os2MsKzLmHRcdZqPPC0=; b=b+UsIt9fkyZ8iGryZtZyohqg6R/VATs/6iMW6i+XQK4N741jwE+n2AxK3dUsh/6+K5 eIXmCJbSkd+LUj3iTJWRNAoUVUC5Tu1X4c4Ki8zsO9y3sMxr7U/9dSxyh3C1p5sNHi0N SYGQvadeUGkkREFLoJJmmXVn8Og9pU/vFCDSai+QYtX1CoxYoZ4J2oefAAAI2jDnmp4f ofBrFqRdVSYxa4nW8Hfr8WaXxsxpK4+hlQU8YmsHgAjjYASEkKJyyo2KarfXQjGSf5Ot vOAVan65Ipr039hQ7zjiwohZ65MislEBrHxR4J12En4Gvncpct4/+pVgSqAuWrPJX47O likg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iSsfOBW1rnJ26Vr6Y/Sa9MI6os2MsKzLmHRcdZqPPC0=; b=fohtk7M6zKV7Y54N0RdO974op45ufwA/pr907mkGsUqCulKdwOvYHofXguPDyzg23K 9+dHLVsrqFKxRpSdMrY3rx/gSe+HTwKckSJ9u07Vlto4n+m+BBwoZo4+bKBJWUHZZD3Q S4nBV+Z4ZHnFp4081xI21KsbMYZySJJLeQGPRleh81nxcn9AZ2Rw1elTOuC6OR1vzGL/ D8G3P2vpzMFt1Ingb/+qv0/Ekcs776iR+o/hD6meJMm8VHy/PozRGX/KVIBWuK6owF93 DZhh2yF2qyKgvqusX5IhHh0CfUUMBDb2v1fyi6/xXmSQdLLsqAz3W83tP9+OWEOXYLLX VhBg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXrdW8Y5Li3p0yUtMAV46t2iSaz8AU92w4hOw6TbNgIfGrKRykl RdUGVSNpaoV4lv/cqdq/fGgRMuCAc0GIF720bgRKXg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwlpfAoafRtm4MF7B/l/TtM6lSjeomq1oF/grFfaR6O1EaCjOchOyx7IWgEAjiqs1obxb+eI0nE9T+m5Tre94c= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4e99:: with SMTP id v25mr20935125otk.363.1582130256442; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:37:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200219030454.4844-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20200219085700.GB32242@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20200219085700.GB32242@linux.ibm.com> From: Dan Williams Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:37:25 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND] mm/sparsemem: pfn_to_page is not valid yet on SPARSEMEM To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Baoquan He , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux MM , Andrew Morton , Wei Yang , David Hildenbrand , Oscar Salvador , Michal Hocko Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:57 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:25:15PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:05 PM Baoquan He wrote: > > > > > > From: Wei Yang > > > > > > When we use SPARSEMEM instead of SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, pfn_to_page() > > > doesn't work before sparse_init_one_section() is called. This leads to a > > > crash when hotplug memory: > > > > I'd also add: > > > > "On x86 the impact is limited to x86_32 builds, or x86_64 > > configurations that override the default setting for > > SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP". > > Do we also want to check how it affects, say, arm64, ia64 and ppc? ;-) Sure, I just did not take the time to look up their respective default stances on SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP. For a distro looking to backport this commit I think it's helpful for them to understand if they are exposed or not.