From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rppt@kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com,
mgorman@techsingularity.net, vbabka@suse.cz, david@redhat.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/page_alloc: add some comments to explain the possible hole in __pageblock_pfn_to_page()
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 11:54:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZEZRv0ycAI0Ated1@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0733a4cf57109a4136de5ae46fac83fb15bdd528.1682229876.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
On Sun 23-04-23 18:59:11, Baolin Wang wrote:
> Now the __pageblock_pfn_to_page() is used by set_zone_contiguous(), which
> checks whether the given zone contains holes, and uses pfn_to_online_page()
> to validate if the start pfn is online and valid, as well as using pfn_valid()
> to validate the end pfn.
>
> However, the __pageblock_pfn_to_page() function may return non-NULL even
> if the end pfn of a pageblock is in a memory hole in some situations. For
> example, if the pageblock order is MAX_ORDER, which will fall into 2
> sub-sections, and the end pfn of the pageblock may be hole even though
> the start pfn is online and valid.
>
> This did not break anything until now, but the zone continuous is fragile
> in this possible scenario. So as previous discussion[1], it is better to
> add some comments to explain this possible issue in case there are some
> future pfn walkers that rely on this.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/87r0sdsmr6.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com/
Do I remember correctly you've had a specific configuration that would
trigger this case?
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> Changes from v1:
> - Update the comments per Ying and Mike, thanks.
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 6457b64fe562..9756d66f471c 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1502,6 +1502,13 @@ void __free_pages_core(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> * interleaving within a single pageblock. It is therefore sufficient to check
> * the first and last page of a pageblock and avoid checking each individual
> * page in a pageblock.
> + *
> + * Note: the function may return non-NULL even if the end pfn of a pageblock
> + * is in a memory hole in some situations. For example, if the pageblock
> + * order is MAX_ORDER, which will fall into 2 sub-sections, and the end pfn
> + * of the pageblock may be hole even though the start pfn is online and valid.
> + * This did not break anything until now, but be careful about this possible
> + * issue when checking whether all pfns of a pageblock are valid.
It is not really clear what you should be doing (other than to be
careful which is not helpful much TBH) when you encounter this
situation. If the reality changes and this would break in the future
what would breakage look like? What should be done about that?
> */
> struct page *__pageblock_pfn_to_page(unsigned long start_pfn,
> unsigned long end_pfn, struct zone *zone)
> --
> 2.27.0
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-24 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-23 10:59 [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/page_alloc: drop the unnecessary pfn_valid() for start pfn Baolin Wang
2023-04-23 10:59 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/page_alloc: add some comments to explain the possible hole in __pageblock_pfn_to_page() Baolin Wang
2023-04-24 2:24 ` Huang, Ying
2023-04-24 9:54 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2023-04-24 11:20 ` Baolin Wang
2023-04-24 11:34 ` Michal Hocko
2023-04-24 11:40 ` Baolin Wang
2023-04-24 12:08 ` Michal Hocko
2023-04-24 12:48 ` Baolin Wang
2023-04-24 13:08 ` Michal Hocko
2023-04-24 9:50 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/page_alloc: drop the unnecessary pfn_valid() for start pfn Michal Hocko
2023-04-24 10:46 ` Baolin Wang
2023-04-24 10:54 ` Michal Hocko
2023-04-24 11:21 ` Baolin Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZEZRv0ycAI0Ated1@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox