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 BF6C0C43334 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 18F886B00CA; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 13:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 13E4A8D0034; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 13:56:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 02CB98D0033; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 13:56:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E516B6B00CA for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 13:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95113578F for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:21 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79559451762.11.4DE7363 Received: from out0.migadu.com (out0.migadu.com [94.23.1.103]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393434006F for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 10:56:09 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1654797378; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rnz2K2i3sOABjcYz20JocfHMNMQmCmpt0izotfrjuZE=; b=j67AOKPWQZyeQS+DeTeQuRDCfaY/8eqKGeUy1H2zcMJDvHMZ1bY+ozG1F+9aDgFxDAwdG3 1jmuYudpBlTmQ01sl8S/rN5C524OkNZSYC0+tRoELIWkQNNhr3oPJ4mbEHp6wXD9lnJZ8l TnTT8UgAnnC6PdJYB2XoMlkbZyQMk08= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Roman Gushchin To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Naresh Kamboju , Linux-Next Mailing List , open list , regressions@lists.linux.dev, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Linux ARM , linux-mm , Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Ard Biesheuvel , Arnd Bergmann , Catalin Marinas , Raghuram Thammiraju , Mark Brown , Will Deacon , Vasily Averin , Qian Cai Subject: Re: [next] arm64: boot failed - next-20220606 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Migadu-Auth-User: linux.dev ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1654797381; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=bB2yBwOaCTTjREZxY3vZdHti8SNMNRzPDhjX9s90KcUawW8/hXWaDWZAYklHRCF+5DF/kN UwjycnAS5KLrMnJigJqjlGDXO+GcNJXQte1+stsl0RUBFoq4tZ9VO6k5x2UfDRmtABFrvr qMWL7hJ/eCKn27nCJtoeu/jt4LQ6qMw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf17.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=j67AOKPW; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass (imf17.hostedemail.com: domain of roman.gushchin@linux.dev designates 94.23.1.103 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=roman.gushchin@linux.dev ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1654797381; 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=rnz2K2i3sOABjcYz20JocfHMNMQmCmpt0izotfrjuZE=; b=kStehTZL20Hsqp+/l0IPov6iAbXIGFa2UD0SHqwMS+AWQBNZn3c9VYjX/fYLoIy6eD75lZ Xu+KFohIx66OqyoL1wJa2BeZTwESU5fRfQZld9IgzlSAUlwWk6xYu4ftXNLOI67BibN/kz Jc/vzIo5y5yCzVoHozQyxe4yu6E40vI= X-Stat-Signature: e4f7p79teh7ouazmdf98bhtffysyw9c7 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 393434006F X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 Authentication-Results: imf17.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=j67AOKPW; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass (imf17.hostedemail.com: domain of roman.gushchin@linux.dev designates 94.23.1.103 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=roman.gushchin@linux.dev X-HE-Tag: 1654797381-655116 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 Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:47:35AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 10:27 AM Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > [...] > > +struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_obj(void *p) > > +{ > > + struct folio *folio; > > + > > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) > > + return NULL; > > + > > + if (unlikely(is_vmalloc_addr(p))) > > + folio = page_folio(vmalloc_to_page(p)); > > Do we need to check for NULL from vmalloc_to_page(p)? Idk, can it realistically return NULL after is_vmalloc_addr() returned true? I would be surprised, but maybe I'm missing something.