Re: [RFC] arm64: mm: update max_pfn after memory hotplug

[Georgi Djakov <quic_c_gdjako@quicinc.com>]

On 9/27/2021 8:34 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 27.09.21 19:22, Georgi Djakov wrote:
>> On 9/24/2021 1:54 AM, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:
>>> From: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@quicinc.com>
>>>
>>> After new memory blocks have been hotplugged, max_pfn and max_low_pfn
>>> needs updating to reflect on new PFNs being hot added to system.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@quicinc.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Goldsworthy <quic_cgoldswo@quicinc.com>
>>
>> Thanks for the patch, Chris!
>>
>> With this patch, the data in /proc/kpageflags appears to be correct and
>> memory tools like procrank work again on arm64 platforms.
>>
>> Tested-by: Georgi Djakov <quic_c_gdjako@quicinc.com>
>>
>> Maybe we should add fixes tag, as it has been broken since the following
>> commit:
>> Fixes: abec749facff ("fs/proc/page.c: allow inspection of last section
>> and fix end detection")
> 
> Are you sure that that commit broke it?

Reverting the above commit also "fixes" kpageflags, otherwise
kpageflags_read() returns 0 in the following check:
	if (src >= max_dump_pfn * KPMSIZE)
		return 0;

> I recall that we would naturally run into the limit, because
> 
> count = min_t(size_t, count, (max_pfn * KPMSIZE) - src);

The function returns before we reach this line.

Thanks,
Georgi

> wouldn't really do what you would expect either. But you could 
> force-read beyond max_pfn, yes, because the count computation was just 
> weird.
> 
> 
> I think the real issue is not properly adjusting max_pfn in the first 
> place when we introduced memoruy hotplug on arm64