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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,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 BADA7C432C3 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 00:12:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73ABE20733 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 00:12:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="bzwXzcLi" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 73ABE20733 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E9CCC6B0005; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E4E6A6B0006; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:12:22 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D3CF16B0007; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:12:22 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0156.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.156]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C944F6B0005 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FF9182499A8 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 00:12:22 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76160213724.24.head73_14af8d494430e X-HE-Tag: head73_14af8d494430e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5217 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by imf50.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 00:12:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1573863141; h=from:from: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:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YucaLxiSa+lbBdWZEiOMixRcsCv7ML3d3r0Ac+pjQcY=; b=bzwXzcLij/PLQ/XEbggwW3DKDYl+dFkc2EoOD0AWGDUuY7xpGB97XX9bAfQsPc0enIoS4S oF2zwOKXFEdwlx0YhIQk/a1Mb7hr2kkW6pAUMNFwqIcfb59jHSeanrV1hXaHZWJFGq4aXd 6rlCxE5pnAQs2faJ+989NSSia7gaYQM= Received: from mail-wr1-f72.google.com (mail-wr1-f72.google.com [209.85.221.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-213-_rDbyLuQOOWGh4OL41JNcA-1; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:12:20 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f72.google.com with SMTP id l3so9299289wrx.21 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:12:19 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=XgPDDVC4pj4uBAGw7ABCh7Q7KCQNqcWlZruL9lBUGm4=; b=g880TPudYRucZF73HHlkd468enM5s5JxjVX6FgBp33h+ZyJ5V5nLHJbqWIXMjR17aK RXjPQniNWYQnxik+mRoek8gvIXumwIkWk4IjgtnHRZABqY1snhXW92PXBXk2q24Amc4Q jl5ilP/i3T9WIfXN/raSwl8+J/RQLv2EZCPAui/4sr8k/4oDpAWkqqsc+qXArMEi1JcH UTBkM80I+GqrFNIMwlrqIOjsikyRrldfRlxQLqDZUxJcSy1oRKVpLQB9IfPqD9n1XuMK gXGz4lsibaPPemb+OgUn90et0aAoSXCwB/UNkMt2hdOYnqb9hVhDXcJ1jb98Zfyuw//l LLXA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXN4+AgkbWkAumugBwWbqkzQYu2D7ETzDazFCUSzrQGOsRtJQlh NGaZRu2ILTmvamGIc9FbA93FmcNNN94w9UlV/D5JvfF9ByyQeZhPzIayH176avqM8ySx3Gtx02e 3mFfTRGZnBkM= X-Received: by 2002:adf:e312:: with SMTP id b18mr4650621wrj.203.1573863138985; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:12:18 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzuVcbtdtlvJftih7/AXWTYumzxtiDyUUaIJ6IUYkm08DAAbDt3jr5OSJ1vjIQacxYbq6hTSg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e312:: with SMTP id b18mr4650602wrj.203.1573863138778; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:12:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.3.122] (p4FF23E4C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.242.62.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f13sm12841564wrq.96.2019.11.15.16.12.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:12:18 -0800 (PST) From: David Hildenbrand Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix try_offline_node() Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:12:16 +0100 Message-Id: References: <20191115160833.beda52bc6f1145bc81960ba7@linux-foundation.org> Cc: David Hildenbrand , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Tang Chen , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Keith Busch , Jiri Olsa , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Jani Nikula , Nayna Jain , Michal Hocko , Oscar Salvador , Stephen Rothwell , Dan Williams , Pavel Tatashin In-Reply-To: <20191115160833.beda52bc6f1145bc81960ba7@linux-foundation.org> To: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17A878) X-MC-Unique: _rDbyLuQOOWGh4OL41JNcA-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: > Am 16.11.2019 um 01:08 schrieb Andrew Morton : >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:58:45 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: >=20 >> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 00:14:13 +0100 David Hildenbrand w= rote: >>=20 >>>> + /* >>>> + * Especially offline memory blocks might not be spanned by the >>>> + * node. They will get spanned by the node once they get onlined. >>>> + * However, they link to the node in sysfs and can get onlined la= ter. >>>> + */ >>>> + rc =3D for_each_memory_block(&nid, check_no_memblock_for_node_cb)= ; >>>> + if (rc) >>>> return; >>>> - } >>>>=20 >>>> if (check_cpu_on_node(pgdat)) >>>> return; >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> @Andrew, can you queued this one instead of v1 so we can give this some= =20 >>> more testing? Thanks! >>=20 >> Sure. >>=20 >> We have a tested-by but no reviewed-by or acked-by :( >>=20 >> Null pointer derefs are unpopular. Should we cc:stable? >=20 > >=20 > I added cc:stable and shall send it upstream unreviewed. Yes, please cc:stable at as mentioned in the patch comments (below the desc= ription). Maybe we=E2=80=98ll find somebody last minute to review ... thank= s! >=20