From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751916AbeDJA0O (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 9 Apr 2018 20:26:14 -0400
Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:51750 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751799AbeDJA0N (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 9 Apr 2018 20:26:13 -0400
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:26:07 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        pagupta@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mm/sparsemem: Defer the ms->section_mem_map
 clearing
Message-ID: <20180410002607.GK19345@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20180228032657.32385-1-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20180228032657.32385-3-bhe@redhat.com>
 <8e147320-50f5-f809-31d2-992c35ecc418@intel.com>
 <20180408065055.GA19345@localhost.localdomain>
 <fa2bb08a-42cc-c0cc-31c0-39d6e14f6f92@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fa2bb08a-42cc-c0cc-31c0-39d6e14f6f92@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 04/09/18 at 09:02am, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/07/2018 11:50 PM, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> Should the " = 0" instead be clearing SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT or
> >> something?  That would make it easier to match the code up with the code
> >> that it is effectively undoing.
> > 
> > Not sure if I understand your question correctly. From memory_present(),
> > information encoded into ms->section_mem_map including numa node,
> > SECTION_IS_ONLINE and SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT. Not sure if it's OK to only
> > clear SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT.  People may wrongly check SECTION_IS_ONLINE
> > and do something on this memory section?
> 
> What is mean is that, instead of:

I mean that in memory_present() all present sections are marked with
below information.

	ms->section_mem_map = (nid << SECTION_NID_SHIFT) |
			      SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT |
			      SECTION_IS_ONLINE;

Later in sparse_init(), if we failed to allocate mem map, the
corresponding section need clear its ->section_mem_map. The existing
code does the clearing with: 

	ms->section_mem_map = 0;

If with 'ms->section_mem_map &= ~SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT', the nid and
SECTION_IS_ONLINE are still left in ms->section_mem_map. Someone may
probably mistakenly check if this section is online and do something, or
still get nid from this section. Just worried.

> 
> 	
> 	ms->section_mem_map = 0;
> 
> we could literally do:
> 
> 	ms->section_mem_map &= ~SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT;
> 
> That does the same thing in practice, but makes the _intent_ much more
> clear.